127 



Gen. 23. Paramisophria, Scott, 1397. 



Generic C Inn- alters. Body cyclopoid in appearance, with the anterior 

 division considerably tumefied. Cephalosome only faintly defined from the 1st 

 JH digerous segment, front produced below to a very small rostral prominence, 

 carrying on the tip 2 extremely minute filaments. Last segment of metasome 

 with 2 Very conspicuous subdorsal projections. Urosome somewhat robust, with 

 the genital segment in female comparatively short. Caudal rami rather broad, 

 with all the setae well developed, 2 of them considerably longer than the others. 

 Eye inconspicuous. Anterior antennae very short and less unequal than in *SW- 

 litl'i, both consisting in female of 21 articulations; left antenna in male with a 

 slight hinge near the tip. Posterior antennse and oral parts resembling in structure 

 those in Scottula; maxillae, however, with the masticatory lobe more fully deve- 

 loped, and with a distinct, though small inner ramus on the palp. Maxillipeds 

 h-vs robust. Natatory legs powerfully developed, with the rami considerably 

 broader than in Swttula, basal part in 2nd to 4th pairs produced at the end 

 inside to .an acute triangular projection, 2nd joint of inner ramus considerably 

 expanded outside. Last pair of legs of larger size than in Scottula, being in 

 female 3-articulate, with the 2nd joint produced inside to a narrow lobe, terminal 

 joint of considerable size and coarsely spinous outside; those in male 5-articulate, 

 without any lobe inside the 2nd joint, terminal joint in right leg unguiform, in 

 left spatulate. 



Remark. This genus was established by Th. Scott in the year 1897, 

 to include a peculiar deep-water Calanoid found by him off the Scottish coast. 

 The name Paramisophria is somewhat inappropriate, as this genus in reality does 

 not exhibit any very close relationship to Misajthria, which even, as shown by 

 Dr. Giesbrecht, belongs to quite a different division of the Copepoda, viz., the 

 Cyckpoida. It cannot of course be placed in the family Mwophrtida, as first 

 suggested by Th. Scott, whereas it is unquestionably closely related to the genus 

 Arietellufi of Giesbrecht, and accordingly ought to be included in the family 

 Arietellidw, as here defined. It differs conspicuously from Scottula, to which 

 it bears a close relationship in some of the anatomical details, in the ge- 

 neral appearance of the body, the much shorter and less unequal anterior 

 antennae, the full number of caudal setae, and the larger size of the last pair of 

 legs. The genus comprises as yet only a single species, to be described below. 



