SIndios (III mariiio Oslraroiis 33.3 



in the end comb. (It seems certain, however, that the nu'cliaiiisin ol tlic jaws is more complicated 

 than is described here, but rortain results with reoaid t,, this (jucstion seem impossible to attain 

 with preserved material; the ,, lower jaw" can, as has been stated above, certainly move f|uit(' 

 freely, and, in spite of this, it is not moved by special muscles fixed directly on it.) 



Furca: — The lamellae are elongated. The number of claws is about five or six. 

 There is no distinct division into main and secondary claws. 



The u p p e r 1 i p has three fields of glands, one unpaired, directed forward and tlown- 

 ward, forming a rather high process, cut off somewhat obliquely distally, and two paired fields, 

 directed somewhat more ventrally and situated distally on two fang-lilce processes. Between 

 the upper lip and the frontal organ there is an unjjaired jirocess. 



The r o d - s h a p e d organ is rather well developed but short. 



The paired eyes are well developed. 



Remarks: — The description given above is based chiefly on the form described below Basis nf the 

 and M. (C.) asymmetrica (G. W. MtiLLEii), the only species of this sub-genus which are described ' ' " ' ' ■'^' 



in detail. 



This sub-genus was established, as is seen above, by (1. S. Bkadv in his work of 1!J02 a. ''■ '^^ -'^'"'A'/"- 

 The following diagnosis is given, loc. cit. p. 187: ,,Like Cypridina, except as to the three pairs 

 of maxillae. The first pair form a simple, elongated, triarticulate liml), which bears at its 

 distal extremity several strongly pectinated claws and setae; to the basal joint is attax;hed a 

 small single-jointed trisetose palp. The second maxilla is in general built like that of Philomedes 

 or Cypridina, but the principal masticating processes are armed with blunt nodular marginal 

 teeth; third maxilla without the hatchet-shaped lobe of Cypridina, which is replaced by a 

 digitiform prolongation, retaining, however, something of the hatchet-shape." 



A comparison will show that there is no great agreement between this (to say the least 

 of it) strange description and the new description I have given above of the sam(> unit. Tliis 

 lack of agreement seems, however, at least to some extent, to be due to mistakes on the part 

 of G. S. Brady. Thus, for instance, this author has overlooked the peculiar freely moveable 

 appendage of the maxilla from which the three endites issue. In the description of the second 

 endopodite joint of the sixth limb there are also certainly some mistakes; the two very large 

 posterior bristles, which are directed backwards and are closely covered witli hairs, w(>re ])re- 

 sumably situated so very close to each other (possibly they were also broken off distally) in 

 Brady's preparation that they have produced an appearance something like what this aiithor 

 has described and reproduced (loc. cit. pi. XXII, fig. 28). Whether the main tooth of the first 

 exopodite joint of the fifth limb has the ecj[uipment described by Brady I must leave undecided; 

 it does not seem impossible to me, however, that there is also a mistake with regard to this. 

 This explanation of G. S. BiiADY's peculiar statements has already been giv(>n by G. W. Mi'Ll.ioii, 

 1906 b, p. 13. 



There scarcely seems to be any reason for seriously doubting that the species described below Certaim;/ of 

 by me really belongs to this sub-genus. In spite of many mistakes in the description and reproductioti idenuftcanon. 

 of M. (C.) javus G. S. Buady has not quite succeeded in concealing the type of this species. 



Dilfi'icDcrs in llic 

 livo drsrriplinns. 



