54 PYCNOGONIDA. 
tioned, much less drawn the gland ducts (ductus glandarii), really found in his original specimen. 
With regard to the figures it has to be pointed out that neither in fig.1a nor in figib of Krøyer 
does the scape of the chelifori show any sign of articulation, and that only in the middle of the scape 
in fig.1c a slight swelling is found. Further it must also be noticed that, while in the text, 1. c. p. 106, 
Krøyer gives the longitudinal relation between the fourth, fith, and sixth joints of the ambulatory legs 
As and SEE ts ao TS In Er EAST NEN ande 2A 
According to what has been stated here, I think that Semper, who has nothing but the re- 
presentation by Krøyer to rely on, has been very bold in referring P4oxichil. fluminense to the genus 
Pallene, 1.c. p. 282. Neither do I think that Bøhm has been justified in referring some Pycnogonids, 
although they have been taken at the coasts of South America, to the Phoxichil. fluminense of Krøyer, 
at the same time referring this species to Pa//ene Johnst. The species described and drawn under 
this appellation by Bøhm, may as well be a genuine 2a//ene Wils., with the scape of the chelifori 
undivided, and no gland duct on the ambulatory legs of the male; and even if Bøhm, contrary to 
the description of Krøyer, might regard F-xoxichil. fluminense as a Pallene, the ratio between the 
joints of the ambulatory legs is so different from the statements of Krøyer (whether regarding his 
text or his figures), and the presence or absence of feathery bristles is so important a feature, that 
Bøhm ought to have hesitated very much in identifying the species. Hoek draws and describes a 
Phoxichil. fluminense Kr. that no doubt belongs to the genus Fa//enopsis Wils., and is nearly related 
to //uminense, but the description is insufficient, and the figures, especially that of the oculiferous 
tubercle, fig. 2, so unlike the real Pa//. /Z/uminensis, that very possibly it may be another species. 
Wilson, 1. c. p. 250, refers as well the species of Krøyer as that of Bøhm to his new genus 
Pallenopsis, without, as it seems, to be quite clear of the uncertainty, but nevertheless I suppose that 
his genus also comprises 240%. /luminense, although this latter in the one rather essential point that 
by Wilson is regarded as the chief point, that is to say, the construction of the scape of the chelifori, 
deviates from the characteristics of the new genus. The description and figures of Schimkéwitsch 
are, like those of Hoek, insufficient, and especially the highly developed bristles, fig. 28 and 29, might 
indicate another species. 
According to the preceding, as well Semper as Bøhm and Wilson seem to have referred 
the Phox. /luminense of Krøyer correctly to the genera known and acknowledged by them, although 
none of them have seen the original specimen of Krøyer, and nothwithstanding the fact, that the 
representation by Krøyer is not only incomplete, but even incorrect in several, and in some of the 
most essential, points. On the contrary I think the species of Bøhm to be different from that of 
Krøyer, and likewise I think it very uncertain that Hoek and Schimkéwitsch. have had the 
species of Krøyer. 
IL Fam. Ascorhynchidæ. 
Corpus plus vel minus manifeste in segmenta partitum. 
Rostrum tumidum, plus vel minus flexibile. 
