ACANTHEPHYRA AGASSIZII. 161 
Acanthephyra agassizii Suiru? 
? Miersia agassizii Surru, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zodl., X. 67, Plate XI. Fig. 5-7, Plate XII. Fig. 1-4, 1882. 
? Acanthephyra agassizii Srv, Aun. Rep. U. 8. Fish Comm. for 1882, p. 372, Plate VIII. Fig. 1, 1884; 
id. for 1885, p. 667, Plate XV. Fig. 1, 6, 6a, 7, Plate XVI. Fig. 2, 1886. 
Station 3583. 1832 fathoms. 1 fem. ovig. 
fee OB OS.8 LOiia a Me 
In the type specimen of A. agassizii the rostrum, although broken off at 
the tip, is as long as the rest of the carapace, and is armed with eight teeth 
above, and five below; the carina of the fourth abdominal segment is not 
prolonged to a spine or tooth posteriorly ; the telson is armed with four pairs 
of spines on the dorsal side in front of the terminal spines. In the two 
specimens which I have doubtfully referred to this species, the rostra fall 
short of the length of the carapace by one fifth, and one sixth the length of 
the latter; the formula for the rostral teeth of one is 7, of the other 8; the 
carina of the fourth abdominal segment is produced into a sharp tooth pos- 
teriorly, as in A. sanguinea Wood-Mason ;* the telson bears three pairs of 
dorsal spines. The branchiostegal spine, moreover, is smaller than in the 
type,t and the enlarged portion of the external antennular flagellum is 
shorter. In other respects my specimens agree well with the type. In 
specimens subsequently referred to A. agassizi by Smith, the rostrum is even 
shorter than in my specimens, and the telson is armed with as many as nine 
pairs of dorsal spines, thus closely resembling A. sica Bate (1888). Bate 
considers A. agassizii Smith to be synonymous with A. purpurea A. M. Edw.,t 
obtained by the “Travailleur” off the coast of Portugal; but in the latter 
species the rostrum is longer than in A. agassizu, and the second abdominal 
segment is not carinated dorsally according to Milne Edwards’s figure § and 
Bate’s diagnosis. 
The form of the eye in A. agassizii is not described by Professor Smith, 
and-in his type specimen of this species the eyes are so much mutilated that 
their true form cannot be satisfactorily determined. In the specimens re- 
ferred to A. agassizii in Smith’s later papers, — specimens which differ from 
the type, as above indicated, — there is an oblong black “ ocellus,” barely 
* Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 6th Ser., IX. 358, Fig. 1, 1892; Ill. Zool. H.M. I. M.S. “ Investigator,” 
Crustacea, Plate III. Fig. 3, 1892. 
+ In this respect also like 4. sanguinea Wood-Mason- 
+ Comptes Rendus, XCIIL., 935, 1881. 
§ Recueil de Figures de Crustacés nouv. ou peu connus, 1*¢ Liyraison, 1883. 
21 
