54 



PYCNOGONIDA. 



tioned, much less drawn the gland ducts (ductus glandarii), really found in his original specimen. 

 With regard to the figures it has to be pointed out that neither in fig. la nor in fig i b of Kroyer 

 does the scape of the chelifori show any sign of articulation, and that only in the middle of the scape 

 in fig. i c a slight swelling is found. Further it must also be noticed that, while in the text, 1. c. p. 106, 

 K rover gives the longitudinal relation between the fourth, fith, and sixth joints of the ambulatory legs 

 as 27, 27, and 51, this ratio is in fig. i f as 27, 27, and 24. 



According to what has been stated here, I think that Semper, who has nothing but the re- 

 presentation by Kr0yer to rely on, has been very bold in referring Phoxichil. fluminense to the genus 

 Pallene, I.e. p. 282. Neither do I think that B0hm has been justified in referring some Pycnogonids, 

 althoiigh they have been taken at the coasts of South America, to the Phoxichil. fluminense of Kr0yer, 

 at the same time referring this species to Pallene Johnst The species described and drawn under 

 this appellation by B0hm, may as well be a genuine Pallene Wils. , with the scape of the chelifori 

 undivided, and no gland duct on the ambulatory legs of the male; and even if B0hm, contrary to 

 the description of Kr0yer, might regard Phoxichil. fluminense as a Pallene, the ratio between the 

 joints of the ambulatory legs is so different from the statements of Kr0yer (whether regarding his 

 text or his figures), and the presence or absence of feathery bristles is so important a feature, that 

 Bohm ought to have hesitated very much in identifying the species. Hoek draws and describes a 

 Phoxichil. fluminense Kr. that no doubt belongs to the genus Pallcnopsis Wils. , and is nearly related 

 to fluminense, but the description is insufficient, and the figures, especially that of the oculiferous 

 tubercle, fig. 2, so xinlike the real Pall, fluminensis, that very possibly it may be another species. 



Wilson, I.e. p. 250, refers as well the species of Kr0yer as that of Bohm to his new genus 

 Pallenopsis, without, as it seems, to be quite clear of the uncertainty, but nevertheless I suppose that 

 his genus also comprises Phox. fluminense, although this latter in the one rather essential point that 

 by Wilson is regarded as the chief point, that is to say, the construction of the scape of the chelifori, 

 deviates from the characteristics of the new genus. The description and figures of Schimkewitsch 

 are, like those of Hoek, insufficient, and especially the highly developed bristles, fig. 28 and 29, might 

 indicate another species. 



According to the preceding, as well Semper as Bohm and Wilson seem to have referred 

 the Phox. fluminense of Kr0yer correctly to the genera known and acknowledged by them, although 

 none of them have seen the original specimen of Kr0yer, and notwithstanding the fact, that the 

 representation by Kr0yer is not only incomplete, but even incorrect in several, and in some of the 

 most essential, points. On the contrary I think the species of Bohm to be different from that of 

 Kr0yer, and likewise I think it very uncertain that Hoek and Schimkewitsch have had the 

 species of Kr0yer. 



II. Fam. Ascorhynchidae. 



Corpus plus vel minus manifesto in segmenta partitum. 

 Rostrum tumidum, plus vel minus flexibile. 



