378 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. ub 



cuticle of the fourth pedigerous segment of D. ulua is Hkewise a 

 characteristic encountered in the euryphorids, although at least in 

 the female, the usual euryphorid condition is that the plates are well 

 developed and overlap part of the genital segment. The genital 

 segment of female em-yphorids is generally large and often lobed 

 posteriorly, a characteristic also noted in D. ulua. In general then, 

 the members of the family Euryphoridae and members of the genus 

 Dentigryps are alike in several characteristics, of which the most 

 noteworthy is the fifth-leg projection. 



The presence of platelike formations of the dorsal cuticle of the 

 fourth pedigerous segment of D. ulua is contrary to the diagnosis of 

 the family Caligidae (Wilson, 1905). In this regard, however, the 

 degree of development of these platelike formations in D. ulua and 

 their reduced condition in D. hijurcatus, D. curtu^, and D. litus sug- 

 gest that on this character alone there is no justification for separating 

 the genus from the family Caligidae, in which it was originally included 

 by Wilson (1913). The problem of the fifth-leg projection and its 

 effect on the family status of the genus cannot be answered by the 

 author at the present time; many euryphorids possess the fifth-leg 

 projection and it is also present in a much reduced state in some of 

 the caligids. In general, however, the appendage complement of 

 Dentigryps, and its makeup, especially that of the first four thoracic 

 legs, is characteristic of the family Caligidae. This condition, in 

 addition to the character of the cephalothorax, fourth pedigerous 

 segment, genital segment, and abdomen, appears to warrant the 

 continued inclusion of the genus in the family Caligidae, 



Within the Caligidae, Dentigryps most closely approximates Le- 

 peophtheirus. The major difference between these two genera is the 

 strongly projecting fifth leg of Dentigryps. Some members of the 

 genus Lepeophtheirus, however, possess small but distinct spikelike 

 fifth legs (e.g., L. goniistii Yamaguti, 1936; L. hastatus Shiino, 1960). 

 The question now arises as to the degree of relationship that species 

 such as the three mentioned above have with members of the genus 

 Dentigryps. The spinelike fifth-leg projections and evidences of plate- 

 like formations of the dorsal cuticle of the fourth pedigerous segment 

 which have also been reported for one of these three species do not 

 agree with the diagnosis of the genus Lepeophtheirus given in Wilson's 

 review of 1905 but do agree with the modified diagnosis of Lewis (1964). 

 It then appears that the major diagnostic difference between the two 

 genera is the length of the fifth-leg projection, which is long and 

 distinct in members of the genus Dentigryps and short and indistinct 

 in those members of the genus Lepeophtheirus that possess the charac- 

 teristic. Lepeophtheirus spinifer Kh-tisinghe (1937), however, pos- 

 sesses a long and well-developed fifth leg in the female. It may well 



