NO. 3653 COPEPODS—CRESSEY is 
and two outer setae. Spermatophores visible within genital segment. 
ReMArRKs.—Wilson (1932) redescribed both sexes of this species and 
stated that no description had been presented since Heller (1865). He 
apparently was unaware of the redescription of the female and descrip- 
tion of the male by Fage (1923). Although Fage’s description is of more 
value than that of Wilson, both lack certain details and, thus, a re- 
description of both sexes has been presented herein. 
This species is very common on mako sharks and, as in other 
members of the genus, the adults are found only on the gill filaments of 
the host. It has been reported from other lamnid sharks as well. 
Habital Shift in the Genus Pandarus 
All species of the genus Pandarus are found commonly on the body 
surface of their respective shark hosts. In this paper three species are 
reported from Jsurus oxyrinchus. Of the 16 collections of Pandarus 
from this host, only one was taken from the body surface (P. smithit in 
the Indian Ocean). All others were collected from the mouth and/or 
the gill arches. During the course of my studies with parasitic cope- 
pods, it has become evident that there is considerable specificity with 
regard to the site of infestation on the host. One can predict with a high 
degree of certainty sites of infestation for any species. Needless to say, 
any marked deviation from the usual mode of existence presents some 
interesting problems. Such is the case with the genus Pandarus as 
found usually on Jsurus oxyrinchus. 
While collecting Pandarus from the mouths of mako sharks, I 
suspected that they might represent new species due to the unusual 
habitat and their noticeable reduction in pigmentation. Subsequent 
examination, however, showed that they all could be assigned to the 
known species—satyrus, smithii, and katoi—differing from other 
members of each species only in the reduced pigmentation. An exami- 
nation of the collection records showed that in all cases where Pandarus 
was present in the mouth, either Dinemoura latifolia and/or D. producta 
were present at the sites where one might expect to find Pandarus on 
other hosts. In the one collection where Pandarus occurred on the 
body surface, Dinemoura was not present. Apparently, the presence 
of Dinemoura inhibits Pandarus from becoming established in its 
usual places. The fact that it does become established in a new loca- 
tion is interesting. I suspect that in time, if they continue to be success- 
ful in this habitat, they will result in new species of the genus being 
produced. By the usual criteria of separating the species of the genus, 
they cannot at present be considered as different species. If, however, 
their progeny result in forms that will not attach to any other host on 
the body surface, then they represent something new. A definitive 
answer to this would come only from experimental evidence and cannot 
280-626—68——2 
