﻿J, 2 COPEPODA 



The main difference between E. messincnsis and this species, found in the structure of the labrum, 

 is observed in the 2 first groups of the oral surface (fig. 9 e), which are fused to a single group consisting 

 of numerous short spinules. The lamina labialis (fig. gf) is distinctly granular; the arrangement of setae 

 in front of the lamina as well as of the spinulous areas behind it is in the main like that of E. messi- 

 ncnsis. The development of the series of setae behind and upon the labial lobes is, as seen by com- 

 paring figs 9 g and 5 g (PI. IV), most like that of E. maxima. 



Y^ (St. V). Size of female from Thor St. 88 was 4-66 mm. ; anterior division 3-85 mm.; iirosome 

 o-8i. A male from the same sample measured 4-99 mm. 



The shape of the body is as in the adult female; the antennulae extend slightly beyond the 

 end of the abdomen. The antennae are in the young female, scarcely different from those of tlie adult 

 female but in the young male the exopodite is twice as long as the endopodite, which is much more 

 powerful and has 7 setae in Li. 



The second basipodite of the fourth pair of legs has in the middle on the inner margin 3 rather 

 short and stiff hairs, while the margin is smooth in the male. The Jifth pair of legs in the male is 

 very much like that of E. messincnsis (cf. text-fig. 34), but the Re dext is more regularly rounded, and 

 does not possess any terminal hair. 



Occurrence. The Thor has gathered the .species in four .samples; the first locality is not quite 

 certain, owing to a mistake. 



V9 1904 St. 285 62°49 L.N. i8°46 L. W. Yt. ? Wire if?. 



'5/6 1905 St. 82 5i°oo L.N. ii°43 L. W. Yt. 1200 M. Wire 6 f $ (i with spermatophor), i y? (V). 



800 M. Wire i f$. 



^"/e 1905 vSt. 88 48°09 L. N. 8°3o L. W. YL 300 M. W^ire 2 f?, 2 y? (V), i yc? (V). 



Remarks. This species, of which I was not able to find any description in the literature, is 

 nearly related io E. messincnsis ; in the shape of the head it provides some .similarity to Giesbrecht's 

 rather imperfect description of E. galcata, but his fig. 22 (Taf. 36) of the genital somite is very different. 



37. Undeuchaete minor Gicsbr. 

 (PI. V figs 3a-g; text-figs 35 a- g.) 



1856? Undina pluinosa n. sp. Lubbock, p. i8, pi. IX figs 3 5. 1 1904. I'luk-ucliei-te minor Oitsbr. Cleve p. 198. 

 1S839. Euch;i4e pulchra Lubb. Brady, pp. 63— 64, pi. XIV figs 



6-9. 

 cf? — australis 11. sp. Brad}', p. 65, pi. XXI figs. S- 9 



1889. Undeuchfflte miuor 11. sp. Giesbrecht, p. 335. 

 1892. — — Giesbr. — p. 228,pl. I4aud37. 



1893? Euchfete australis Brady Th. Scott, p. 58, pi. VI fig. 23. 



1895. UndeuchEEte minor Giesbr. Giesbrecht, p. 251. 



1896. — — — Cauu, p. 424. 

 1898. — — _ Giesbrecht & Schineil, p. 34. 

 i9°3- — — — Thompson & Scott, p. 244. 

 1904. — ._ _ Wolfenden, p.m. 



Description, f?. vSize of specimen from SL 88 was 4-65 mm. ; anterior division 3-68 mm.; uro- 

 some 0-97 mm. Giesbrecht's specimens measured 3-2, Farran's 4-2, and A. Scott's 3-5— 4-5 mm. 



