[ 25 



II. Amphipoda from the Copenhagen Mmeiuii and other Sources. By the Rev. 

 Thomas R. R. Stebbing, M.A., F.H.S., F.L.S 



(Plates 6-14.) 



Head 19th November, 1896. 



Introductom Remarks. 



The Zoological Museum at Copenhagen is rich in Amphipoda. It is rich also in 

 living authorities on this group of Crustaceans, since Inspektor Dr. Meinert and Professor 

 Liitken are two of its Directors, and Dr. H. J. Hansen is on the staff. This might well 

 seem a happy concurrence of a fine collection in the hands of those well qualified to 

 make its value known to the world. But the masters in science find their work 

 continually expanding, while time remains remorselessly inelastic. Hence it is that 

 these gentlemen, being themselves beset by other duties, have passed over to me the 

 task of reporting on the Amphipoda of the Danish University. 



In this first memoir on the subject some of the more striking rarities are described, 

 together with one or two of a less uncommon type. As the collection is not local but 

 cosmopolitan, the opportunity has been taken of bringing mto notice certain other new 

 or insufficiently known forms, in addition to those received from Denmark. For some 

 of these I am indebted to Professor W. A. Ilaswell, D.Sc, of Sydney, New South Wales, 

 and G. M. Thomson, Esq., E.L.S., of Dunedin, New Zealand. A specimen, which in 

 the Report on the ' Challenger ' Amphipoda was unavoidably presented without 

 adequate ceremony, and which in conseqiience subsequently became the subject of 

 misunderstanding, is now set forth with due illustration, and a specimen from the Clyde, 

 some years ago described without figures, now in like manner makes a more formal 

 appeal for acceptance as the representative of a valid species. 



The range of the various specimens described extends from the shore to the deep sea, 

 from Cuba to Ceylon, from the North Atlantic to the South Pacific, from the western 

 coast of Scotland to the eastern coasts of Australia and New Zealand. Nine genera and 

 ten species are discussed. Six of each are new. The species afford an illustration of 

 two difficulties which not unfrequently arise in systematic natural history. Some of 

 them are so like their jireviously known neighbours that a short-sighted jierson might 

 think them not worth distinguishing. Others stand oddly apart, with so queer a combi- 

 nation of characters that more than one existing family must look at them askance, 

 imwilling to embrace, reluctant to repulse, in truth not very well able either " to do 

 with them or without them." Opinions will differ on the policy of promptly establishing 

 new families for eccentric forms, or of postponing that responsibility to as late a date as 



SECOND SERIES. — ZOOLOGY, VOL. VII. i 



