■U On some (7('«fim 0/ IlippolyticljB. 



may serve as a definition for tlie new genus in wliicli I 

 propose to place it : — 



" Carapace with a supraorbital, an antenna], and a single 

 antoro-lateral (pterygostomial) spine. External process on 

 first segment of antennulcs spiniform. Antennal scale 

 Lroad, rounded at the tip. Mandibles (according to Spence 

 Bate) without incisor-process or palp. Third maxilliped with 

 exopod. Carpus of second perjeopods composed of two 

 segments. Neither arthrohranchia; nor epipods on the 

 ])era?opods. Endopods of the second to the fifth fiairs of 

 ])leopods very broad.-" 



Tiie genus Concordia (Kinosley. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. 

 Philadelphia, 1879, )i. 413). of wliich I have seen no specimens, 

 is stated to have the rostrum very short, the antennal scale 

 very small, and the telson acute, and it appears to have no 

 supraorbital spines. 



Genus Angasia, Spence Bate. 



Tczeuwa, Stimpson, Proc. Acad. Pbiladolphia, 1860, p. 26 (preoccupied 

 as To.xeuma, Walker). (Type, T. lanceolatum, Stimps.) 



Angasia, Spence Bate, JPrcc. Zool. Soc. London, 1863, p. 498. (Type, 

 A. pavonina, Sp. Bate.) 



This genus is very closely allied to Latreutea, with which 

 it might, perhaps, be united. It differs, however, in having 

 the process on the first segment of the antennules long and 

 .spiniibrni, a single antero-lateral (pterygostomial) tooth on 

 the carapace, and no epipods on the legs. 



Genus Amphiplectus. 



A)npJiipl€ctus, Spence Bate, Chall. Rep., Macrura, p. 622. 



The genus Amplnphctus of Spence Bate must, I think, be 

 excluded from the Hippolytidge altogether. In examining 

 the unique specimen of tlie only species of the genus — A. de- 

 pressus — I fail to see the {^lightest trace of segmentation in 

 the carpus of the second pera^opods. Spence Bate's reference 

 to this is not very intelligible, but he seems to have had 

 difficulty in perceiving tlie segmentation. The shape of the 

 mandible, which has the incisor-process not separated from 

 the molar, is very unlike that found in any of the other genera 

 of the family. It is possible that Spence Bate's remark on 

 the resemblance of the legs to those of Nematocarcinus may 

 point the way to the true position of tiie genus ; but tlie 

 consideration of this question may be postponed till we are in 

 possession of more satisfactory material than is afforded by 

 the unique and now much mutilated type specimen. 



