2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. iob 



Family Penaeidae 

 Subfamily Penaeinae 



Metapenaeopsis sp. ? 



Figure 1 



Bikini Atoll: 1^ miles south of west end of Bikini Island; 12 

 fathoms, coral bottom; Apr. 23, 1946; J. P. E. Morrison; 1 male 

 abdomen. 



This species may be identical with Metapenaeopsis dalei (Rathbun, 

 1902). Comparison of the petasma (fig. 1) with those of the type 

 specimens of M. dalei discloses certain differences, however, such as 

 the form of the left distoventral projection, which is armed with only 

 three teeth in the Bikini specimen and not noticeably curved over 

 the right distoventral projection as in M. dalei. The form of the 

 right distoventral projection is also slightly different from those in 

 the types. The petasma of M. dalei is figured by Rathbun (1902, 

 fig. 10) and is discussed by Kubo (1949, p. 100, fig. 33). Some of the 

 smallest type specimens of M. dalei have the petasmata very similar 

 to that of the present specimen, but they are distinctly different in 

 specimens having petasmata of similar size (about 6 mm. in length). 

 Because of the fragmentary condition of the Bikini specimen, it seems 

 best to defer a specific determination until more specimens are avail- 

 able and until more is known of the distribution and variation of the 

 species of Metapenaeopsis. 



Subfamily Sicyoniinae 



Sicyonia bispinosa (de Haau) ? 



Figure 2 



? Hippolyte hispinosus de Haan, 1844, pi. 45, fig. 9. 



? Sicyonia bispinosa de Haan, 1849, p. 195. — de Man, 1911a, p. 120, pi. 10, figs. 

 42-42C. 



Rongelap Atoll: Lagoon; 23+ fathoms; June 16, 1946; M. W. 

 Johnson; 2 females. 



The larger of these two specimens has the carapace considerably 

 macerated. The smaller specimen has a carapace length of 4.4 mm. 

 (total length about 18.5 mm.). It agrees almost exactly with de Man's 

 description and figure. The only differences noted are the slightly 

 longer lateral carina on the rostrum, which reaches quite to the third 

 rostral tooth, and the form of the ventral rostral tooth, which is 

 directed downward somewhat more than indicated in de Man's 

 figure. Both of these differences may be attributable to the slightly 

 larger size of the present specimen. De Man does not mention, how- 



