HCIIIZUPODA. .17 



The species will be fully descril>ed and named by Dr. Hanson, HO here I will 

 merely note the point* of distinction between it and . I. maxima. 



(1) Eyt. In .1. maxima (PI. VIII., tig. 1) the eye is large and the visual rlniicnt- 

 occupy a large part of the outer side of the eye-stalk, so that in dorsal view the inner 

 eye-stalk proper is mut-h longer than the outer, and in external lateral view very 

 little of the latter is visible. In the present form the eye is smaller and narrower than 

 in .1. maxima, the visual elements occupy the terminal part of the eye-stalk only, so 

 that the inner and outer margins of the latter arc sulcqiial in length, and in external 

 lateral view practically the whole of the eye-stalk is visible. 



(2) Rostrum. In A. maxima the angle contained by the antero-latcral margins 

 of the carapace which form the rostrum is equal to or slightly greater than a right 

 angle, so that in lateral view the antero-lateral margins are not very oblique. The 

 tip of the rostrum is produced into a very small spine. 



In the new species the angle of the rostrum is considerably less than a right 

 angle, so that the antero-lateral margins of the carapace in lateral view are very 

 oblique. The apex of the rostrum is bluntly rounded. 



(3) Antenna. In A. maxima the basal joint of the antenna, from which the 

 anteunal scale and peduncle arise, bears two spines ventrally, one at each of the outer 

 and inner distal corners. In the new form, only the one on the outer distal corner is 

 present, the inner corner l>eing rounded. 



(4) In .1. maxima the tarsus of the third to the eighth thoracic limbs is seven 

 to eight-jointed (excluding the nail); in the present species the tarsus is six to 

 seven-jointed, so that the two distal joints before the nail are proportionately longer 

 than in .4. maxima (cf. PI. VIII., Fig. 8, with Coutiere (1906), PI. I., Fig. 11). 



In other characters the two species are practically identical. 



VOL. IV. 



