Amphipod from Keio Gardens. 135 



aiiteiinse and the form of the outer pUites of the maxilHpeds, 

 which help to confirm the distinctness of the Kew species 

 from botii the otliers. 



At the same time it should be noted that comparison of the 

 earlier accounts of Talitrus si/Ivaticiis ^ives the impression 

 that this species is more than usually variable, or else that 

 more than one species has been included under that name. 

 HaswelFs earlier figures (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. iv. 1879, 

 pi. vii. fig. 1) show the second gnathopods as very slender, 

 with the propodus four times as long as wide in the male. 

 In the later figure by llaswell (op. cit. x. 1885, pi. x. fig. 1), 

 as in those given by Thomson (Proc. li. Soc. Tasmania, 1892 

 (189.3), pi. iv.) and by Sayce, the proportions are very 

 different. 



A still more puzzling discrepancy exists between published 

 accounts of the ])leopo(Js. Thomson {t. c. p. 61) states that 

 he failed to find any trace of the third pair. Sayce [t. c. 

 p. .32) confirms this : " no vestige of a third pair is to be 

 found." Chevreux [f. c. p. 392). on the other hand, de- 

 scribing specimens of T. sylvaticus sent to him by Prof. 

 Chilton, states that the pleo])ods of the third pair * resemble 

 those of the. first two pairs in being biramous, althouoh they 

 are of smaller size. In two specimens from Port Jackson, 

 2-eceived from the Australian Museum many years ago as 

 T. sylvaticus, I find the third pleopods to be represented by 

 small vestiges much like those figured by Chevreux in the 

 case of T. allaaudi. These vestiges are so small and, from 

 their position, so hard to see, that they may possibly have 

 been overlooked both by Thomson and by Sayce. It is 

 hardly possible, however, that Chevreux can have been 

 deceived on tliis point, to which he gave special attention in 

 comparing the species with T. alluaudi. 



Mr. A. O. Walker, who has been good enough to examine 

 specimens of the Kew Talitrus for me, has called my attention 

 to the resemblance of its elongated second gnatliopods to 

 those figured by Spence Bate in Talorchestia (?) africana 

 (Cat. Amphip. Brit. Mus, 1862, p. 15, pi. ii. fig. 6). The 

 resemblance is considerable, and since the holotype is a 

 female, it is quite j)0ssible that Bates's species really belongs 

 to the genus Talitrus. Even in its present mutilated and 

 fragile condition, however, the specimen shows some cliarocters 

 which forbid its association with the Kew species. The 



* M. Chevreux writes " uropodes de la troisieuie paire," but from the 

 context it is quite clear that he is referring to the pleopods. 



