TERRESTKIAL ISOPODA OF NEW ZKALAND. 123 



it merely a subgenus of Oniscus. In 1874 a ge'iuis, Sc!i})hacclla, was established by 

 S. I. Smith*, who says: — "This genus differs from ScijiiIklv most notably in the form 

 of the maxillipedcis, whicli in Sci/plutx have the terminal segment broad and serrately 

 lobed, while in ovir genus it is elongated, tapering, and lias entire margins. In Scyphux 

 also the posterior pair of legs are much smaller I ban the others, and weak ; tlie last 

 segment of tlie abdomen is truncated at the apex, and tlie articulations b(!t\Aeeu tlic; 

 segments of the terminal portion of the antennte are much more complete tlian in 

 our species. Tlie general form iind appearance of the genera, are the same, and the 



known species agree remarkably in habits " Budde-Lund t gives Smith's species, 



Sci/ijltacella ureiilcola, as nearly related to Triclioiuscioi (illddns ; and Sars^;, following 

 Budde-Lund, refers to the genus Scijpliaccllu as coming under his family Trichoniscida^. 

 It appears, however, from Smith's remarks that his genus is really nearer to Scypliax 

 even than he thought, for of the four points of difference which he gives, two are based 

 on errors in Dana's description, for tlie seventh pair of legs in Sci/phax are small and 

 weak only in immature forms and the terminal segment is not truncate, the mistake 

 here having arisen from the fact that the lateral margins of the terminal segment arc; 

 not shown in his figure. In the other two points of difference Scijphacella certainly 

 does ajjproach Trichouiscas, but they are, I think, only of comparatively little 

 importance, and the spiny antenote and whole general appearance of Scupluicella are 

 more like Scyphux than any Trichonisciis that I know of. It is, moreover, e\i(lent that 

 Scyphacella cannot come under the Trichoniscidae as defined by Sars, for (1) the 

 metasome is not much narrower than the mesosonie, and (2) the eyes, instead of being 

 " small or wholly wanting," are large and prominent. Of course the question could be 

 settled at once if we knew whether the mandibh; in ^cijpJiacella has a molar tubercle 

 or not, and Avhether the inner lobe of the maxilla has three or two plumose bristles. 

 Unfortunately, no special information is given on these points, either by Smith or by 

 Hayer, who afterwards examined the si^ecies. But the mandibles of Scypluix are figured 

 by Dana, and presumably these drawings would be noted by Smith, who evidently 

 examined those of Scijphacella, for he says "mandibles slender," and if these had 

 possessed a molar tubercle he would almost certaiuly have noticed it. 



Until the question can be settled by the examination of specimens, I think we are 

 justified in including Hcypliacella under the Scyphacidiie as nearly allied to Scyphax if 

 not actually identical therewith. 



The genus Scyphax is represented in New Zealand only by one species, though another 

 is occasionally classed under it. 



1. Scyphax ornatus, Dana (1853). (Plate 14. fig. 2, and Plate 15. fig. 1.) 



Scyphax ornatus, Dana, U. S. Explor. Exped., Crust, ii. ]>. 7.3 1-, pi. xlviii. fig. 5 (1853). 

 Scyphax ornatus, Miers, Cat. N. Z. Crust, p. 101 (187()). 



Scyphax iutermedius, Miers, Annals & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, xvii. p. 227 (1870); Cat. N. Z. Crust, 

 p. 102, pi. ii. fig. 8 (187G). 



* Rep. U. 8. Fisheries, pt. i. p. /i'iT (1874). 

 t L. c. p. 249. 

 t L. e. p. 160. 

 SECOND SERIES.— ZOOLOGY, VOL. VIII. 19 



