length of the remaining very slender part of the antenna; 1st joint provide 

 near the end with 3 remarkably strong and densely plumose setae, 2nd joint 

 with 2 short spines in addition to the setae. Posterior antennae resembling in 

 structure those in D. psyllus. Endopodal part of maxiHae with the terminal 

 joint subfusiform in shape, and fringed inside with 5 setae gradually increasing 

 in length distally, its tip somewhat exerted and carrying 2 subequal setae. 

 Anterior maxillipeds with the terminal part comparatively short and only com- 

 posed of 2 joints. Posterior maxillipeds distinctly biarticulate, distal joint slightly 

 constricted near the end. The 4 anterior pairs of legs with both rami distinctly 

 3-articulate, and gradually increasing in length behind, those of 4th pair remark- 

 ably long and narrow, with most of the setae obliterated. Last pair of legs 

 of a similar slructure to those in the 2 preceding species, but of comparatively 

 smaller size. 



Colour of the living animal not yet ascertained. 



Length of the specimen examined 3.40 mm. 



Male unknown. 



Remarks. The present species may at once be recognised by the peculiar 

 structure of the caudal rami, a character which indeed has given rise to the 

 specific name proposed by Brady. The shape of the incubatory pouch is also 

 rather characteristic, and some peculiarities are moreover found in the structural 

 details, as indicated in the above diagnosis. 



Occurrence. A solitary female specimen only of this distinct species has 

 as yet come under my notice. It was obtained, many years ago, at Hval0r 

 outside the Christiania Fjord, and, as far as I remember it, was taken from 

 the branchial cavity of a Corella paralellogramma. 



Distribution. British Isles (Brady). 



Gen. 4. Doropygopsis, G. O. Sars, n. 



Generic Characters. Body comparatively more slender than in Doropygus, 

 distinctly curved in female, straight in male. Incubatory pouch of moderate 

 size. Tail composed in both sexes of 4 segments, the last not cleft behind. 

 Caudal rami slender and narrow, with the apical setae less rudimentary than 

 in Doropygus. Anterior antennae in female of a similar structure to that in 

 the said genus; those in male however conspicuously transformed and distinctly 

 prehensile. Posterior antennae rather unlike those in Doropygus, and more 

 resembling in structure those in the Notodelphyidce. Oral parts well developed 



