82 Dr. W. T. Caiman on some Oenera 



Horn, Crust, p. F 46) belongs to the same genus. I have 

 examined two of the type specimens kiiuUy sent me by 

 Prof. E. L. Bouvier. It difTers from the other species of the 

 genus in possessing exopods on the third maxillipeds. 



Genus MERIIIPrOLYTE. 



Merhippoh/te, Spencp Bate, Cliall. Rep., Macrura, p. 618. (Type, 

 M. mjidhascnxis, Sp. Bate.) 



The carpus of the second per^eopod In the type species has 

 14 or 1.5 segments and the mcrus is also more or less 

 distinctly annulated. Of the three segments of the man- 

 dibular j)alp the first is subequal to tlie second. The other 

 characters are as given by Spence Bate. On Merhipjwli/te 

 ousti-alis, Hodgson, see under JS^auticaiu's above. Spence 

 Bate suggested that llippolyte spinifrons, Mihie-Ed wards, 

 might belong to this genus, and Mr. G. M. Thomson has 

 acce))ted the suggestion (Trans. Linn. Soc. (2) Zool. viii. 

 ]). 444, 1903). The species, however, appaars to nie to ba 

 much more closely allied to t!ie genus Alope, and, indeed, 

 a specimen in the Museum collection labelled Hippoh/te spini- 

 frons is specifically identical with Alope palpalis, White. 



Genus Sl'lRONTOCARlS, Spence Bate. 



Sjnrontocaris, Spence Bate, Cliall. Rt^p., Macriira, p. o9o. (Type, 



.S'. spinus, Sowerljy.) 

 Hetairus, Spence Bate, t. c. p. 610. (Tyjie, II. polaris, Sabine.) 

 Euales {o\' Eualiis), Thallwitz, Abh. Mus. Dresden, 18;jU-91, no. 3, p. 2"3. 



(Type, E. obeses, Thallw.) 

 Jleliu, Thallwitz, t. c. p. 24. (Typt^, If. Fahn'di, Kriiyer.) 

 Jfefcurocaris, de Man, Nutes Leyden Mus. xii. p. 120 (1890). (Type, 



JI. orientalis, de .M:in.) 

 Heptncarpus, Ilulmes, Occas. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci. vii. p. 195 (1900). 



(Type, IL pafpator, Owen.) 

 Biriiha. Bra/nikov, Annuaire Mus. St. Peter.sb. viii. Xouvelles, p. xliv 



(1903J. (Type, B. sachalinensis, Brazuikov.) 



All the above genera agree in possessing a mandible witii 

 a reduced incisor-process and a palp of two segments, seven 

 segments in the carpus of the second peraopods, and no arthro- 

 branchiaj on the pera^opods. They have been separated mainly 

 on tlie ground of differences in the armature of the carapace and 

 in the number of einpods. It is possible that some of them 

 may de.-erve to be kept distinct, but the material at my 

 dis|)Osal is not sufficient to enable me to estimate the value of 

 the characters upon which they have been based. 



I have assumed that Thallwitz is in error in stating that 

 the mandible is -without an incisor-process in his genus flelia. 



