6 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 
and called Rhopalorhynchus: There can be no doubt that this is the same as the 
genus formerly (1870) described ‘by Jarzynsky * as Colossendeis. Wood-Mason’s species 
is an inhabitant of Port Blair, Andaman Islands. 
Miers (1875 and 1879) ° mentions two species of Nymphon, and one of a new genus, 
which he calls Tanystylum, and which is nearly allied to Achelia. These species were 
collected at Kerguelen Island during the visit of the English and American Transit of 
Venus expeditions to that Island. Béhm (1879)° has made a very careful study of the 
Pyenogonids of the Royal Zoological Museum at Berlin. He describes two species of 
Nymphon and one of Achelia, as collected at Kerguelen; one species of Nymphon col- 
lected south of the Cape of Good Hope, one Pallene (?) taken in the Straits of Magellan, 
another Pallene from Mozambique, a Phowichilidium and a Phoxichilus collected in 
the neighbourhood of Singapore ; finally, besides some species from Northern Europe, 
three species found near Enosima (Japan); one species of a new genus, which Bohm 
calls Lecithorhynchus, one Ascorhynchus (Gnamptorhynchus, Bohm), and one species of 
Pallene. Slater (1879)* published a short paper on a new genus of Pyenogonids (Para- 
zetes) found in Japan, and described in the same paper a variety of Pycnogonwm litorale 
from the same country. 
In the Boston Journal of Natural History, Eights (1836 ?) mentions the genus Decalo- 
poda, but I have not been able to ascertain whether this is a good genus, nor where it 
has been found.’ <A species of Pasithoe described by Dr Gould’ is, according to Wilson 
(loc.cit. p. 2), “indeterminable.” To Mr Wilson’s paper I am also indebted for the men- 
tion of a species of Pycnogonid found on the coast of Chili: it seems to be a species 
of Pycnogonum.’ 
In this enumeration the reader will not find a complete list of the descriptive litera- 
ture of Pyenogonida, but all the more important publications, together with the greater 
number of the minor papers on our group are mentioned. With a few exceptions the 
zoological publications about Pyenogonids are very superficial, and this I believe is owing 
partly to the circumstance that many authors who have had no opportunity of comparing 
large collections of different forms have published descriptions of species and even of 
genera from the examination of such species only. To describe new species, however, ought 
1 Th. Jarzynsky, loc. cit. 
2 E. J. Miers.—Descriptions of new species of Crustacea collected at Kerguelen’s Island, by the Rev. A. E. Eaton. 
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, fourth series, vol. xvi., 1875 ; Crustacea of Kerguelen Island, Philosophical 
Transactions, London, vol. elxviii. ; extra volume, pp. 200-214, 1879, pl. xi. 
5 R. Bohm, loc. cit.; the same in Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde in Berlin, 1879, 
pp. 53 and 140, 
* Henry H. Slater.—On a new genus of Pyenogon (Parazetes) and a variety of Pycnogonwm littorale from Japan 
Ann. and Magaz. of Nat. History, 5th series, vol. iii., 1879. 
® Boston Journal of Natural History, i. 204, t.7. (See Cuvier’s Animal Kingdom, London, Wm. S. Orr & Co., 
1840, p. 468.) 
® Proc. Boston Society Nat. Hist., vol. i. p. 92. 
7 Gay.—Historia fisica y politica de Chile, Zoologia, p. 308, pl. iv. fig. 8, 1854. 
