302 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 23 6 



Antenna with allobasis; exopodite small, 1 -segmented, styliform. 

 Endopodite with 8 marginal spines and setae, distribution of which 

 appears from figm-e I19g. 



The oral parts have been compared with Gurney's description and 

 figures with the result that I found a difference only m the structure 

 of the maxUlule; it has a small exopodite with 2 setae which apparently 

 had been overlooked previously. 



Leg 1 (fig. 119a) with 3-segmented exopodite and endopodite; 

 legs 2 to 4 with 2-segmented endopodites and 3-segmented exopodites. 

 The details of these legs appear from figures 119b-d, the setal formula is: 



All feet strongly spinulose at bases and external margins of exopo- 

 dites. 



Endopodite of leg 1 also with fine, long spinules, which may easily 

 be mistaken for short setae. 



Leg 5 (fig. 119e) with small, circular exopodite, bearing 5 marginal 

 setae. Baso-endopodite of about same length as exopodite, with 

 4 strong setae and 2 (internal) dagger-shaped spines; baso-endopodites 

 of both sides fused in median plane. The dagger-shaped spines are 

 a very prominent feature in the present specimen but, judging from 

 the figures in the literature, they appear to vary considerably in size. 



Color completely faded, transparently whitish. No eye or pig- 

 mented spots visible. 



Remarks. — 'The distribution of this species, which lives under 

 purely marine as well as under brackish water conditions, has been 

 discussed by Lang (1948, p. 1189). To these localities may be 

 added: Lake Fasten on Fehmarn Island, and Kiel Firth, Germany, 

 in the Baltic (Noodt, 1953: 9 0.6 mm., cf 0.47 mm.); Lough Ine of 

 County Cork, Ireland (Roe, 1960) ; and Teneriffe in the Canary Islands 

 (Noodt, 1955a). The present specimen originates from the alga 

 Microdictyon collected at 35-40 ft. depth in the lagoon at Falarik 

 in the Ifaluk Atoll. 



Family Lourinidae Monard, 1927 



For reasons to be described below (p. 312), I have kept this family 

 separate from the Canthocamptidae; as appears from Noodt's argu- 

 ments (1955a, p. 213), they are related but, in my opinion at least, 

 quite distinct. 



