with 2 setae and surface setules. Blade damaged in all 

 preparations. 



Mxl gnathobase apparently without anterior distal 

 seta, although very flat spiniform process suggested 

 by some preparations; 4 proximal posterior setae. 



Mx2 with moderately strong nude hump on prox- 

 imal outer edge; outer seta apparently absent; 

 posterior surface of lobe-5 base without spines. 



Mxp Bl without spine-comb; transverse row of 

 setules about midlength on anterior surface; distal in- 

 ner anterior surface with transverse row of stiff hairs; 

 few other spinules and setules over surface. B2 

 without spine-comb; longitudinal row of stiff hairs on 

 inner edge. Two outer setae on Ri4-5 not fragile, as 

 large as other large terminal setae, fringed with long 

 hairs on inner edge, short hairs on outer edge; no 

 spinules on inner edge of Ri5. 



PI Bl inner edge and surface with few hairs. B2 in- 

 ner surface and margin with few setules and hairs; 

 outer distal anterior edge with transverse row of small 

 spinules. Rel-2 anterior surface with outer distal row 

 of spinules; Re3 posterior surface without spines. Rel 

 outer spine barely reaching Re3, although somewhat 

 variable; Re2 outer spine reaching slightly beyond 

 base of terminal spine. Ri inner lobe with row of 

 spinules on anterior surface. 



P2-P3 Bl surface nude, inner margin with hairs. P4 

 Bl surface with proximal row of spinules on posterior 

 surface, in addition to transverse row of setules near 

 base of seta; inner margin without hairs; B2 nude. 



P2 Rel outer spine small, straight, not sharply 

 curved. 



Re2 posterior surface on P3-P4 with 1 oblique row of 

 long spines. 



Re3 posterior surface on P2-P3 with 1 distal row of 

 short spines; posterior surface on P4 without spines, 

 anterior surface with distal row of small spines. 



Ri2 posterior surface on P2 with proximal row of 3-7 

 small spines, distal row of 6-9 long spines. 



P3-P4 Ri3 posterior surface with proximal row of 

 denticles and distal row of long spines. 



Re terminal seta with following number of primary 

 teeth: P2 (24-29); P3 (20-25); P4 (24-25). 



Male,— Length 1.80-2.43 mm (Figs. 39, 40). 

 Prosome in dorsal view long ovoid; anterior irregular, 

 nearly rectangular; posterior somewhat rounded; in 

 lateral view with gentle forward slope. Ce and Thl 

 separate; Ce only slightly expanded dorsolaterally. 

 Prosome length 2Vi times urosome. Anal segment not 

 reduced, two-thirds length of caudal ramus. Caudal 

 rami length lU times width, symmetrical. Caudal 

 setae unknown. 



Al reaching end of caudal rami; segment 1 without 

 cluster of spines or setules; segments 8 and 9 (fused) 

 relatively long; segment 25 not reduced. IV-2s, le; 

 Vra-2s, le; XV-ls, le; XIX-ls, le; right XX-0; left 

 XX-le; remainder as Table 4. 



P4 Bl with inner seta reaching mid-B2. 



P5 (Fig. 41) biramus, left-handed; reaching nearly 

 to distal edge of urosome segment 3. Left Bl reaching 



one-third length of right B2; left B2 reaching middle 

 of right Rel. Right leg somewhat longer than left; 

 right Re, including terminal blade, longest; left Ri 

 longest. Order of length, longest to shortest, of Re 

 segments: left 1, 2, 3; right 1 = 2, 3. Left Ri reaching 

 left Re tip; right Ri reaching right mid-Re3. Each Rel 

 with short flat seta on distal outer edge. Right Rel-2 

 nearly fused; line of fusion midlength on each Ri. 

 Inner edge of left Re2 with long hairs. Only 1 bladelike 

 terminal seta seen on each Re. 



Male stage V.— Length 1.88-2.02 mm. PI Ri lobe 

 anterior surface with 2 close rows of spinules, upper 

 row ca. 15 short spinules, lower row ca. 7 long 

 spinules. P5 (Fig. 42) biramus, symmetrical. Re 1- 

 segmented; small flat seta just proximal to trace of 

 segmentation about one-third length; 1 flat terminal 

 seta. Ri 1-segmented with midlength trace of segmen- 

 tation; terminal flat seta nearly reaching Re terminal 

 seta. 



Remarks 



Wolfenden's (1904) original description of S. 

 magnus was very brief and only distinguished it from 

 known species. 



Farran (1905) provided the first detailed descrip- 

 tion; he stated that the setation of the swimming legs 

 agreed with S. abyssalis, which it does not. His il- 

 lustration of PI, however, shows 5 setae on Ri; this 

 was overlooked by Rose (1937) and Grice (1971). 

 Farran mentioned the asymmetry of the caudal rami 

 and setae; the large ramus was incorrectly stated as 

 the right, but correctly shown in his figure. 



Wolfenden (1906) provided descriptive information 

 on an Antarctic specimen, which he said agreed close- 

 ly with northeast Atlantic specimens and those from 

 the Strait of Gibraltar. This description was essential- 

 ly reprinted in 1911. 



Sars (1924, 1925) unfortunately described and il- 

 lustrated S. magnus Pi Ri with only 4 setae. Three of 

 the four samples in which he found this species were 

 from the Mediterranean Sea; this seems to have been 

 overlooked by Sars himself in his summary of dis- 

 tribution, and also by Rose (1933, 1937) and Scotto di 

 Carlo (1968), but not by Massuti (1939). Sars reported 

 that S\ magnus is found throughout the Bay of Biscay; 

 this is not supported by his data or earlier records. 

 Perhaps he misread "west" for "east" longitude of 

 his eastern stations, placing the three stations in 

 the vicinity of the Bay of Biscay, albeit two on 

 land. 



Van Breemen's (1908) description is from Farran. 

 Rose's (1933) and Farran and Vervoort's (1951a) 

 descriptions are from Sars. 



Brodsky (1950) included two species in his descrip- 

 tion of S. magnus (see S. antarcticus) . Only his 

 remarks on and illustration of the North Pacific form 

 apply to S. magnus. Brodsky, however, was the first 

 since Wolfenden to point out the existence of two 



28 



