COPEPODS GATHERED BY ALBATROSS—WILSON 247 
processes seen in figure 831. The tip of the third segment is tapered 
into an exceptionally long spine. Total length 3.75 mm. Metasome 
2.50 mm. long, 1 mm. wide. 
Allotype male—U.S.N.M. No. 74115; station 5185, latitude 
10°05’45’’ N., longitude 122°18’30’’ E., between Panay and Negros, 
Philippine Islands. 
Remarks.—The lamella with the curved point on the ventral pro- 
tuberance of the female is easily visible in side view and, together 
with the subglobular caudal rami of the male, makes identification 
easy. 
EUCHAETA SPINOSA Giesbrecht 
PLATE 18, FIiacurEs 243-244 
Euchaeta spinosa GIESBRECHT, Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, monogr. 
19, pp. 246, 263, pl. 16, figs. 12, 26, 34, 47; pl. 37, figs. 31, 34, 35, 50, 1892. 
Stations 3; 19; 22; 31; 41; 42; 48; 52; 2861; 3694; 3712; 3765; 3800; 
3878; 3932; 4009; 4010; 4190; 4583; 4588; 4646; 4694; 4700; 4707; 
4719: 4722; 4757; 4760; 4793; 4926; 4952; 5120; 5129; 5185; 5186; 
5190; 5196 ; 5224 ; 5226-5229 ; 5231; 5233; 5240; 5246 5 52638; 5320; 5896; 
5897 ; 5422; 5451; 5578. Identified by Sars from 13 of these Albatross 
and from 30 Monaco stations but not found in the Siboga plankton and 
only twice in the Carnegie plankton. 
EUCHAETA WOLFENDENI A. Scott 
PLATE 8, FIGURES 74-78 
Euchaeta wolfendeni A. Scott, Copepoda of the Siboga Expedition, monogr. 29a, 
pt. 1, p. 68, pl. 17, figs. 1-12, 1909. 
Stations 4592; 5120. Identified by Sars from the first of these 
stations and labeled by him “2. wolfendent A. Scott.” Figures 74- 
76 are reproduced from Sars’ pencil drawings and show conclusively 
that wolfendeni cannot be a synonym of pubera as claimed by Sars in 
his Monaco report. He himself drew these figures and those shown 
for the pubera female (figs. 328, 329), and they are certainly not of 
the same species. The pudera urosome lacks the scalloped border on 
the right margin of the genital segment, while the wolfendeni uro- 
some lacks the lamina with a hooked point on the ventral protuber- 
ance, and the latter is little more than half as large as the former. 
But these figures of Sars do agree with those given by Scott in the 
Siboga report for his new species wolfendeni. We are forced to con- 
clude, therefore, that we are dealing with two valid species and that 
neither of them is a synonym of the other. [This was also concluded 
by Sewell (1929, p. 154), who found it well distributed in Indian 
waters.—W. L. S.] 
