﻿,. PYCNOGONIDA. 



tioned, much less drawn the gland ducts (ductus glandarii), really found in his original specimen. 

 With rep-ard to the figures it has to be pointed out that neither in fig. i a nor in fig i b of Kroner 

 does the scape of the chelifori show any sign of articulation, and that only in the middle of the scape 

 in fig. I c a slight swelling is found. Further it must also be noticed that, while in the text, 1. c. p. io6, 

 Kroyer gives the longitudinal relation between the fourth, fith, and sixth joints of the ambulatory legs 

 as 27, 27, and 51, this ratio is in fig. i f as 27, 27, and 24. 



According to what has been stated here, I think that Semper, who has nothing but the re- 

 presentation by Kroyer to rely on, has been very bold in referring PJioxichil. flumincnsr to the genus 

 Pallcne^ I.e. p. 282. Neither do I think that Bohm has been justified in referring some Pycnogonids, 

 although the}- have been taken at the coasts of South America, to the Phoxichil. flnminensc of Kroyer, 

 at the same time referring this .species to Palloir JohnsL The species described and drawn under 

 this appellation by Bohm, may as well be a genuine Palloic Wils. , with the scape of the chelifori 

 undi\-ided, and no gland duct on the ambulatory legs of tlie male; and even if Bohm, contrar\- to 

 the description of Kroyer, might regard Phoxichil. flumincusc as a Pallcne , the ratio between the 

 joints of the ambulatory legs is so different from the statements of Kroyer (whether regarding his 

 text or his figures), and the presence or absence of feathery bristles is so important a feature, that 

 Bohm ought to have hesitated very much in identifying the species. Hoek draws and describes a 

 Phoxichil. flmninensr Kr. that no doubt belongs to the genus Pallcnopsis Wils., and is nearly related 

 \.o fluiuiiioisc, but the description is insufficient, and the figures, especially that of the oculiferous 

 tubercle, fig. 2, so luilike the real Pall, fljiminensis^ that very possibly it ma_\- be another species. 



Wilson, I.e. p. 250, refers as well the species of Kroyer as that of Bohm to his new genus 

 Pallcnopsis, without, as it seems, to be quite clear of the uncertainty, but nevertheless I .suppose that 

 his genus also comprises Pliox. flumincnse, although this latter in the one rather essential point that 

 b\- Wilson is regarded as the chief point, that is to sa\-, the construction of the scape of the chelifori, 

 deviates from the characteristics of the new geuu.s. The description and figures of Sell imkewitsch 

 are, Hke those of Hoek, insufficient, and csi^ccially the liighly developed bristles, fig. 28 and 29, might 

 indicate another species. 



According to the preceding, as well Semper as Bohm and Wilson seem to have referred 

 the Pliox. fliiinincnsc of Kroyer correctly to the genera known and acknowledged b\- them, although 

 none of them have seen the original .specimen of Kroyer, and nothwithstanding the fact, that the 

 representation by Kroyer is not only incomplete, but even incorrect in .several, and in some of the 

 most es.sential, points. On the contrary I think the .species of P. ohm to be different from that of 

 Kroyer, and likewise 1 think it very uncertain that Hoek and S chi m ke wi tsch have had the 

 .species of Kroyer. 



II. Fam. Ascorhynchidae. 



Corpus plus vel minus manifeste in segmenta partitum. 

 Rostrum tumidum, plus vel minus flexibile. 



