200 Dr. C. Chilton on 
and Amathia, being “ distinguished from the former by the 
form of the telson and the stoutness of the pereopoda, and 
from the latter mainly by the large size of the second gnatho- 
poda.” Before recognizing that the species I had found at 
Lyttelton was the same as Haswell’s, I had begun to describe 
it as a new species of Hurystheus. In 1885 Haswell stated 
that the relations of the species were not correctly expressed 
by the position in which it was placed in the ‘* Catalogue of 
Australian Crustacea,’ and that it belonged to the Corophiide. 
He gave a new definition of the genus, still retaining the 
erroneous statement that the maxillipeds had “a squamiform 
plate on the basos only,” and describing the terminal uropoda 
as ‘“biramous, the outer ramus with slightly hooked spines 
and straight hairs, the inner with straight hairs only.” 
In 1893 Della Valle gave the species as doubtfully 
belonging to the genus Protomedeta. In ‘ Das Tierreich, 
Amphipoda’ (1906, p. 383), Stebbing renamed the genus 
Parapherusa, as the names Harmonia and Chloris were both 
preoccupied, and placed it in the family Gammaridz between 
the genera Paramicruropus and Amathillopsis, and he retained 
it under the Gammanidee in 1910. 
As there has thus been some difference of opinion as to the 
systematic position of this Amphipod, and as there are several 
points in its structure that have not yet been fully described, 
the following account may be acceptable :— 
In most respects (¢. @., in the mouth-parts, gnathopods, and 
pereeopods) the species shows well the general characters of 
the Gammaridz, the form of the palp of the mandible being 
like that of many Gammaride, and showing that it cannot 
come near to Hurystheus, as was originally supposed. In the 
first antenna the secondary appendage is long, being nearly 
half as long as the primary flagellum, and both the first and 
the second antenne are fringed on the underside with long 
slender set, giving an appearance not unlike that found in 
some species of Hurystheus. ‘The greatly broadened perzeo- 
pods again are paralleled by some species of Hurystheus, and 
so is the long spine arising from the peduncle between the 
rami of the first uropod. On the other hand, the telson, 
though single and somewhat thick and apparently partially 
rolled up, being convex above, shows neither hooks nor the 
special character of that of Hurystheus and allied genera, 
The outer ramus of the third uropod bears, in the male, a 
peculiar stout seta or spinule dentate towards the end, some 
ot the other sete are slightly curved towards the end and 
finely serrate, but they seem quite distinct from the definite 
hooked setee found in Jassa (formerly known as Podocerus) 
