439 



Remarks. This species briefly described by Scott in the above-cited 

 treatise, is most nearly related to E. gracile Scott, but is of somewhat larger size 

 and still more slender form of body. It moreover differs slightly in the structure 

 of the antennae, the maxillipeds and the last pair of legs, as also in the very long 

 and slender caudal setae. 



Occurrence. Some few specimens of this form were picked up from 

 samples taken last summer at Korshavn from a depth of 30 50 fathoms, coarse 

 sandy bottom. 



Distribution. Scottish coast (Scott). 



Gen. Neobradya, Scott, 189-2. 



Generic Characters. Body elongate, of cylindrical form, without any 

 sharp demarcation between the anterior and posterior divisions. Rostral pro- 

 minence short, triangular. Genital segment in female not subdivided. Caudal 

 rami small, with the principal apical seta sub-geniculate. Anterior antennae 

 elongate, resembling in structure those in Cylindropsyllus and Stenocaris. Posterior 

 antennas however rather different, the outer ramus being very fully developed. 

 Anterior lip simple, flap-shaped. Mandibles strong, with the palp large and 

 biramos. Maxillae with the exopodal lobe unusually large. Maxillipeds com- 

 paratively small, the anterior ones with 4 setiferous lobes inside, and the apical 

 part distinctly defined; the posterior ones not prehensile, 3-articulate, and armed 

 inside with a number of stout appressed spines coarsely pectinate along the one 

 edge. Natatory legs moderately slender, with the number of setae much reduced ; 

 1st pair with both rami 3-articulate, the 3 succeeding pairs with the inner ramus 

 biarticulate. Last pair of legs very small, with the distal joint imperfectly 

 defined at the base and the inner expansion of proximal joint poorly developed. 

 A single ovisac present in female. 



Remarks. The systematic position of this genus appears to me some- 

 what doubtful. Th. Scott believes it to be nearly allied to the genus Bradya of 

 Boeck, and according to that opinion it should of course be included in the 

 family Ectinosomidve. There are however several characters by which it con- 

 spicuously differs from the members of that family, and by which it shows a cer- 

 tain affinity to a very different family, viz., that of the Cylindropsyllidce, with 

 which the external appearance also agrees better than with the Ectinosomidce. 

 On the other hand, the structure of the posterior antennas and the mandibles is 

 very different from that in the first-named family and more in accordance with 

 that found in the Ectinosomidce. I think that it will be found advisable in 



