84 



height slightly exceeding half the length, dorsal margin straight in the middle 

 and conspicuously ascending behind, joining the posterior edge by an abrupt 

 angular bend, ventral margin scarcely at all sinuated, anterior extremity narrowly 

 rounded, posterior very broad and obliquely deflexed, with the lower corner 

 evenly rounded off; seen dorsally, narrow oblong in outline, with the greatest 

 width scarcely exceeding 2 /5 of the length, anterior extremity more pointed than 

 the posterior. Valves rather densely hairy and having the hyaline borders in 

 front and behind very narrow; surface in most cases apparently quite smooth, 

 though in some specimens a very delicate and dense reticulate pattern may 

 be traced over the whole of the shell. Posterior legs with the penultimate 

 joint distinctly subdivided, shortest apical seta not hamitorm and more than 

 twice as long as the terminal joint. Caudal rami comparatively slender and 

 attenuated, with the apical claws of moderate size and distinctly denticulate, 

 the distal one scarcely attaining half the length of the ramus. Genital lobes 

 of a rather peculiar and characteristic shape, being divided by a deep median 

 sinus into 2 lanceolate lappets, the posterior one the larger. 



Male somewhat smaller than female, but resembling it in the shape of 

 shell. Prehensile palps of maxillipeds rather unequal, the right one being 

 much broader than the left, with the outer edge considerably bulging. Copu- 

 lative appendages differing somewhat in shape from those in the other species 

 and exhibiting 2 sub-erect terminal lappets of rounded form. Ejaculatory tubes 

 also somewhat deviating in structure, the central duct being unusually wide, 

 whereas the radiating spikes are very short. 



Colour opaque white. 



Lenght of adult female amounting to 1.05 mm. 



Remarks. I am by no means assured, that the identification of this species 

 by other authors has in every case been correct. Thus it appears to me quite 

 evident, that the form so named by Ekman cannot be this species, as the 

 female genital lobes are described and figured as quite simple, rounded off; 

 nor seems the outline figure of the shell given by Dr. Aim to be in any full 

 accord with the present species. Yet, it may be assumed as tolerably certain, 

 that both the form recorded by Lilljeborg and that described and figured by 

 Brady are in reality identical with the species here in question. By none of 

 the authors I find any mention of the peculiar shape of the genitale lobes, as 

 described above, though this character alone will suffice for distinguishing the 

 present species form any of the other known Candonae. As to the C. fallax 

 of G. W. Muller, it has recently been mentioned by Dr. Aim as a synonym 

 of C. compressa. Wheter this is correct or not, I am unable at present to decide. 





