242 Dr. C. Chilton on a New-Zealand 



was described by Thomas Scott in 1893, but was referred to 

 the genus with some doubt, as it possessed several characters 

 that seemed rather to indicate that it should be placed under 

 Stegoplax *. Some confusion already seems to have crept 

 into the discussion, for while Haswell's description in his 

 Catalogue says that the superior antennoe are without a secon- 

 dary flagellum, and this description is quoted in full by 

 Btebbing, yet the latter describes his species Cyproidia dam- 

 noniensis as having a minute one-jointed secondary tlagellum 

 on the superior antennae, without indicating in any way, so 

 far as I can find, that in this respect his species differs from 

 the generic description given by Haswell. It was apparently 

 this that led Scott to say that Cyproidia and Stegoplax differ 

 in " the apparent presence [Cyproidia^ or absence {Stegoplax) 

 of a minute secondary appendage to the superior antennae " f? 

 though a few lines further on he recognizes that in possessing 

 no secondary appendage to the superior antennse his species, 

 ? Cyproidia brevij-ostrii, " agrees better with Haswell's amended 

 description than with that of the Eev. Mr. Stebbing, as well 

 as exhibits a close affinity witii Stegoplax.'^ Whatever tlie 

 author of Cyproidia may have intended, it appears that his 

 genus is fated to be considered as having the possession of a 

 minute secondary appendage to the upper antennse for one of 

 its characters, for Sars, in his recent work, in comparing the 

 genus with his Stegoplax, speaks of Cyproidia, " as recently 

 redescribed by Mr. Stebbing," as possessing a secondary 

 appendage, though he also points out other differences, as, 

 indeed, previous author-s had also done :|:. 



Delia Valle places both Cyproidia and Stegoplax as syno- 

 nyms of Peltocoxa, Catta §, as had been previously suggested 

 by Stebbing II; but with the discovery of new species it is 

 hardly likely that these genera will be allowed to drop, and, 

 on the other hand, Stebbing has quite recently established a 

 new genus Paracyproidea, differing from Cyproidia in several 

 small points, for the species Cyproidia lineata, Haswell^. 

 At the same time he also established the new genus Tetra- 

 deion for the species Cyproidia ? crassa that I provisionally 

 referred to Cyproidia in 1882 **, but though both genera 

 belong to the Amphilochidge, Tetradeion is very different from 

 the true Cyproidia. 



* Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 6, vol. xii. 1893, p. 244, pi. xiii. 



t L. c. p. 245. 



J ' Crustacea of Norway,' i. p. 2-32. 



§ ' Fauna unci Flora des Golfes Neapel,' Monograph 20, p. 647. 



II ' Keport on the ' Challenger' Amphipoda,' p. 441. 



*il Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 7, vol. iv.p. 207. 



** 'Transactions New Zealand Institute,' xv. p. 80, pi. iii. fig. 1. 



