5 8 Addis on E. Verrill, 



Part of the work on this genus by Prof. Brooks was done on 

 Beaufort material, but most of his embryological work was done 

 on Bahama specimens. He does not give the special locality of 

 specimens figured. He gives, of the adults, only a few figures of 

 parts, such as the sixth segment, uropods, telson, and reproductive 

 organs ; also a third maxilliped and mandibles. From these 

 figures and no description of the adult it is not possible to identify 

 his species with certainty. 



The petasma as figured by him is unlike that of my specimens 

 and unlike the figures of Bate and Faxon. If correctly drawn, 

 it would indicate a distinct species. It is smaller, simpler, and 

 farther back from the opposed tubercle than in any of the others 

 figured. The telson is represented as smaller and its armature 

 somewhat unlike that of my specimens, but he may not have taken 

 much pains in drawing such details. 



Species of Leucifer are widely distributed in the warmer parts 

 of all the oceans. One species was recorded from Georges Bank, 

 off Massachusetts, by Prof. S. I. Smith, but was not identified. 

 It may have been L. fa.voni. 



Three stages of the larvae, of a species from G. O. Sars' work, 

 are reproduced on pi. 18, figs. 6-8. These may belong to 

 "L. typus" of Europe. Similar larvae were taken by us at 

 Bermuda in 1898. 



Borradaile records several other species from the Atlantic. 

 Among them are L. acicularis Dana (Brazil) ; L. affinis Bor.= 

 L. typus Bate (all tropical seas) ; L. batei Bor. (Atlantic and 

 Pacific). 



According to Borradaile, in the true L. typus the eye and stalk 

 are much longer than the rest of the cephalothorax. The exopods 

 of the uropods are tapered distally. Rostrum is lacking. Ventral 

 spine of sixth abdominal segment is pointed. It inhabits the 

 tropical Atlantic. 



The differences between L. faxoni and L. affinis, as diagnosed 

 by Borradaile, are slight and are mostly minor variations in pro- 

 portions of parts. As his L. affinis seems to be based on the 

 figures given by Bate, such differences may be due partly to 

 imperfections in the drawings, or to variations due to age, sex, 

 mode of preservation, etc. It seems to me probable that they 

 represent only one species. 



The only differences that seem to be of much importance, aside 



