Holotype of Parazetes auchenicus. 203 
Loman does not mention in this connexion A. minutus, 
Hoek, from which Ortmann distinguishes A. bicornis because 
(among other less important characters) the former is said to 
have an unpaired spine or tubercle at the base of the chelo- 
phores. The two type-specimens of Hoek’s species, however, 
have clearly a pair of tubercles in that position (as Loman 
found also in a specimen referred to this species from the 
‘Siboga’ Expedition), and I cannot find any characters by 
which it would appear safe to separate it from A, bicornis. 
Fig. 4. 
\ K 
Ascorhynchus auchenicus (Slater), holotype. First leg of left side (first 
and second coxee from above, distal segments from behind), with 
enlarged figure of terminal claw. 
While agreeing with Loman that the tubercles or processes 
on the body and on the coxee of the legs may vary widely in 
degree of development, I propose to restrict the name A. ra- 
mipes (Bohm) to specimens having no claw on the first legs 
and the abdomen about as long as the proboscis, and to apply 
the name A. auchenicus (Slater) to forms which have a claw 
on the first legs and the abdomen not more than half as long 
as the proboscis. ‘The following synonymy is suggested :— 
Ascorhynchus auchenicus (Slater). 
Parazetes auchenicus, Slater, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (5) iii. 1879, 
. 281, 
We givehis minutus, Hoek, Rep. Pycnogonida ‘Challenger,’ 1881, 
p. 55, pl. vi. figs. 10-16; Loman, Pantopoden der ‘ Siboga’ Exped. 
1908, p. 33. 
Ascorhynchus bicornis, Ortmann, Zool. Jahrb. Syst. v. 1890, p. 162. 
Ascorhynchus ramipes (part.), Loman, Abh. k. Bayer, Akad. Wiss, 
Minchen, Suppl. Bd. ii, 1911, Abh. 4, p. 6, 
