GAMMARIDEAN AMPHIPODA 155 



Perhaps the closest affinity of this species is with M. dbyssaUs 

 Steplienseii (1931) but the second gnathopodal pahns of that species 

 are sliorter and more transverse and the proportions of the three 

 articles of nropod 3 are different. 



Metopa abyssi Pirlot (1936) has short dactyls on pereopods 3 and 5 

 and equal rami of uropod 2. 



The assumed male of M. sams'dima has characteristic minute orna- 

 mentation on the pereopodal dactyls. The figured dactyl of pereopod 

 2 has broadly spread posterior notches and two anterodistal accessory 

 cusps. Cusps but not serrations are absent on the dactyl of pereopod 

 1, pereopods 3 and 4 have one cusp each and pereopod 5 has two cusps. 



^lidlateral sutures occur on article 5 of antenna 2; they are faint 

 and may be artifacts although they occur on both sides of the animal 

 and give the appearance of primordial segmentation often seen on 

 antennal fiagella. 



Material. — Station 7359, male, 5.4 mm. 



DiSTRiBunoN. — Southern California, 1G20 m; ?middle Baja Cali- 

 fornia, 1096 m. 



Synopiidae 



Austrosyrrhoe K. H. Barnard 



Austrosyrrhoe ilergetes iiiconstatts, new subspecies 



Figure 77 



Diagnosis. — Differing from the typical subspecies described by 

 J. L. Barnard (1964b, Mediterranean bathyal) by the unexpanded 

 sixth articles of pereopods 1 and 2, the slightly shorter article 5 of 

 gnathopod 2, the sliglitly more slender article 2 of pereopods 3 and 4 

 and the subquadrate, not rounded, sinus of pleonal epimeron 3. 



HoLoriTE.— AHF No. 6036, female, 2.6 mm. 



Type-locality.— Station 7229, 27°5-t'25" N, 115°40'00" W, 1720- 

 1748 m, Dec. 31, 1960. 



Material. — Three typical and one dubious specimens from the type- 

 locality. 



Remarks. — In addition to the above character differences, the third 

 uroi:)ods of the specimens at hand have longer peduncles and relatively 

 shorter rami tlian the typical subspecies. Because deep-sea specimens 

 are often poorly preserved and damaged, one must question the repre- 

 sentation of uropod 3 by Barnard (1964b) . 



