MYJUAPODA BRoLEMANN. 



61 



(Mandible with its ventral part enlarged and fringed with 

 spined bristles ; with or without a blunt tooth at the apex.) 



Coxosternum of first maxillae undivided (all the elements 

 distinct from one another ; lateral palpi present or missing). 



Coxosternum of second maxilla? divided into two plates (which 

 remain in contact on the middle line); sternal and pleural parts 

 fused together and with the corresponding coxa 5 (without chitini- 

 zed suture ; anterior inner angle provided with a conical, more 

 developed process ; last joint armed with a smooth claw). 



Tergum of maxillipedes much narrowed anteriorly ; inner 

 margin of pleura? almost parallel ; (joints and claw of maxillipedes 

 armed with more or less developed teeth). 



Sterna destitute of porous area ; last sternum narrow. 



Anal legs, including coxa, seven jointed, the last joint being 

 tipped with a claw coxa bearing isolated pores. 



(Anal pores present). 



Type. — Pachymerinus millepunctatus (Gervais 1 ), Silvestri. 

 Several species have been recorded from the Pacific slope of South 

 America, but it is uncertain if they belong to the Genus Pachy- 

 merinus as outlined above. 



Pachymerinus froggatti, sp. nov. 

 (Figs. 6-17). 



LJ*£ 



Parallel sided on the anterior two-thirds of 

 the body, then tapering backwards. 



$ : Length 28 mm. — Breadth of the first 

 tergum 1 mm. ; of the penultimate 0.40 mm. 

 — 55 pairs of legs. 



Cephalic plate longer than broad (in the 

 proportion of l - 50to - 85), leaving uncovered 

 a large part of the maxillipedes. Anterior 

 margin reaching the base of the claw of the 

 maxillipedes, straight, slightly notched in the Fig- 6, P. froggatti, 

 middle ; lateral margins almost parallel ; pos- Brolem. Ceph- 

 terior angles rounded. The surface shows no tergum & oi max- 

 frontal sulcus, but a pale line is to be seen illipeds. 



5 Attems, 1909 (Jena Denksehr., xiv. ), admits that the part of the coxos- 

 ternum, hitherto considered as answering the coxa, represents two joints 

 fused together ; but his opinion seems by no means. justified as the sulcus 

 he refers to does not appear to exist. 



