NO. 3652 ISOPODA AND TANAIDACEA—MILLER 7 
the two anthurids were taken from the anchor of buoys set at depths 
of 14.1, 11.1, and 15.4 meters. Tanaidaceans ranged from the surface 
to the bottom depths of 10 to 20 meters with the majority of occur- 
rences (10 out of 18) below five meters and the median depth at 
which buoys were set. The number of species and the occurrences 
of tanaidaceans and of several isopod families are too small for more 
than cursory analysis. The possible relationship of motility with 
depth of occurrence will be discussed later. 
In the following systematic review of the collection, the collection 
sites and previously reported localities for each species are given 
along with pertinent remarks on their systematics, ecology, and 
distribution. 
Order ISOPODA 
Suborder FLABELLIFERA 
This sizable suborder (1400 species; Waterman and Chace, 1960) 
is represented in the fouling collection by 10 species belonging to 
seven genera distributed among three families—Sphaeromatidae (eight 
species), Cirolanidae (one species), and Excorallanidae (one species). 
Sphaeromatids were found on 45 buoys, but each of the other two 
families was taken from only one buoy. 
Family SPHAEROMATIDAE 
The sphaeromatids comprise a prominent group in the collection 
not only in number of species (eight), but also in the abundance of 
specimens. Swimming ability is relatively well developed in many 
members of this family, and this doubtless enables them to gain 
access to buoys. Woodboring sphaeromatids probably have been 
transported on wooden ship bottoms and in driftwood to new localities. 
All the sphaeromatids in the buoy collection fall into two of the 
three ‘‘groups” in Hansen’s (1905) subfamily Sphaerominae, namely 
the hemibranchiatae and eubranchiatae. The hemibranchiate genera are 
Sphaeroma (three species) and Gnorimosphaeroma (one species). The 
eubranchiate genera are Paracerceis (two species), Dynamenella (one 
species), and Cymodocella (one species). The Sphaerominae platy- 
branchiatae are not represented. 
Unfortunately, as Monod (1931b) remarked, the systematics of the 
Sphaeromatidae is in a state of confusion. The confusion stems from 
the tremendous sexual dimorphism in this family, coupled with parallel 
adaptations for conglobation. Females and immature males have been 
described as different species, even in separate genera, from adult males. 
Variation among individuals of the same size and sex adds to the 
taxonomic difficulties, as attested by long synonymies. Another com- 
plication, especially in widespread species, is that local races or sub- 
