72 T. V. llODliSON. 



Tlie (lay at'liT sciidiug iu the corrected proof of this Report I received from 

 Miss Richardson a Supplementary Report on the Isopoda collected by the French 

 Antarctic Expedition. Slie there records the following species: — 



Nototanais anturct'icufi II(jdgs<ju. 



,, australi'<. 



Gnathin antarctica Studer. 

 Exosphieroinn antarctica. 

 Ci/modocella tubicaxula Pfefl'er. 

 Serulis polita Pfeffer. 



Notasi'llus aii.strali'< Hodgson. 

 Haliacris austral is Hodgson. 

 Antias charcoti Richard.son. 

 Austriiminiia antarctica Riclianlson. 



„ serrata. 



,, subtriangulata. 



Austrimunna iiicisa. 



The individuals forming this collection arc rather sciinty iu number and the 

 majority have apparently been more or less severely injured. Of the five new species 

 not more than ftiur representatives were Touud for any of them. Nototanais australis 

 is very closely allied to A^. antarcticus, but differs in the structure of the first 

 appendages of the mesosome of the male. Except for this diflerence the resemblance 

 is exceedingly close. 



C'/inodocella tuhicauda. — I have dealt at length witli this .species. 



Ifidiacris australis. — I think I have satisfactorily proved that this species is 

 identical with H. antarctica Pfeffer, and it should be included under that name. 



Austromunna serrata. — This species does not appear to be assigned to the right 

 genus; it closely resembles my ^4 H.sf/wjrt?;i!<<, but is distinct from the species 1 have 

 described. 



Austromunna subtriangidata. — This comes very close to, if it is not identical with, 

 my Austromunna rostrata. Only a single specimen was found and no reference is 

 made to its legs ; these might easily have been injured. 



Austromunna incisa. — This species is a very close relation to my new genus 

 Austrositjnum, to which, I think, it should be assigned. It seems most closely allied to 

 A. grande. Here again there is no information as to the legs, beyond an outline 

 figure of the first appeuilage of the mesosome. 



The figures which accompany the Report do not impress me greatly, but if they 

 are to be relied on the species are not to be identified with those taken by the 

 'Discovery.* In the last two species, however, I very much doubt this. 



