4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL. 120 
Methods 
MEASUREMENTS.—In general, the procedures of Fleminger (1957) 
were followed. All measurements were taken with an ocular microm- - 
eter from specimens mounted in glycerine; prosome and urosome > 
were measured at 62.5X magnification using a stereoscopic micro- - 
scope; individual segments were measured at 80 magnification 
{ 
using a compound microscope. No allowance for telescoping or ° 
expansion at joints has been made, but damaged specimens have 
been omitted. Total length (TL) was routinely measured and the | 
prosome-urosome length ratio (PUR) was calculated. Details of © 
special measurments are presented in the text. All figures were : 
drawn with the aid of a camera lucida. 
Co.tiEctions.—Plankton samples used in this study were obtained 
by three kinds of tow. Most collections were CalCOFI (California | 
Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations standard plankton tow) 
oblique tows (140 meters to the surface), taken with a one-meter — 
net (1m/O; cf. Berner and Reid, 1961, or Fleminger, 1964b, for more | 
extensive description). Some collections were obtained from aseries ; 
of vertically stratified horizontal net tows taken at various depths | 
by one-meter, Leavitt-type, opening-closing nets (1m/H; cf. Ahlstrom, 
1959, for description). Much of the coastal material from the Gulf 
of California was collected by standard conical nets (no. 333 Nytex 
mesh) roughly %m in diameter (4m). A %m conical net constructed 
of monel mesh (¥%m/HS) and patterned after the cone of the Gulf-III 
Sampler (Gehringer, 1952) was used at some stations off southern 
Baja California. The %m and \m/HS nets were towed within five 
miles of the intertidal between the surface and five meters for periods 
of 5 to 15 minutes depending on locality. Some collections were taken 
by vertical tows and are referred to in the tables by ‘‘V” placed after 
net type. Station locations are shown in figure 2. 
Morphological Terminology 
The abbreviations of Giesbrecht and Schmeil (1898), later repeated 
' 
by Rose (1933), afford a practical means for dealing with calanoid 
morphology in the light of the unresolved problem of homologizing | 
it with malacostracan morphology (Illg, 1958). With widespread 
usage these abbreviations would simplify descriptive sections, but, 
unfortunately, they have not been utilized as frequently as their 
merits warrant. To reduce copepod morphological ambiguities, 
Gooding (1957, 1960) has tabulated and carefully defined terms and 
abbreviations frequently misused. His definitions are followed in the * 
present paper. 
It seems useful to review briefly the terminology used in this and | 
future papers of this series on Labidocera. The calanoid body is | 
| 
