Canon A. M. Norman on Brit'iHli Am/i/iipotia. Xi!) 



words, liowevcr, scarcely accord with the present species: — 

 " Pedes S**' et 4^ paris [/. e. first and second perseopodsj ungue 

 innlto hroviore quam articulo 6*° elongato." 



The nails in l\ oculatus are very long and afford a good 

 characteristic as compared with the short nails of" Phoxo- 

 cephafus llulhdUi. 



Hah. St. Magnus Bay, Shetland, 1867, a single specimen 

 {A. M. S. J recorded in Siietlund iieport of 18G8 as Plcoxus 

 llolbdlli) : ^[us, Nor. Seven miles off Bradda iload, Isle of 

 Man, 31 fathoms {A. 0. W.). 



Distiib. Tromso, Finmark (/. S. Schneider) ; Naples 

 [A. M. A'.) : Mas. Sor. Greenland (//. J. IJanscn) ; Jan 

 Mayen ; Finmark and Norway coast as far south as Farsund 

 [U. 0. Sart^). 



GO. Ph otocephalus simplex (Bate). 



1857. Phoxus simplex, Bate, Anu. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 2, vol. x.v. 



p. 52.'). 

 ISOI. Phoxtis simplex, Bate & Westwood, (1) vol. i. p. 140. 

 1>9G. I'hoxoci'phalus simplex, Caiman, " On Species of Phoxocephalus 



and Apherusa," Trans. Roy. Irish Acad. vol. xxx. p. 748, pi. xxxii. 



fig. 3. 

 Is'JC). Phoxocephalus pectinatus, A. 0. Walker, " On Two new Species 



of Amphipoda Gainmarina," Ann. »fc Mair. Nat. Hist. ser. (3, vol. xvii. 



p. .'{J.S, J)!, xvi. tigs. i-G, and vol. xviii. p. 150. 

 185X3. Metaphorus typicus, Bonnier, Results sci. de Campagne dii 



' Caudan,' Edriophthalines, p. G;iO. pi. xxxvii. fig. 1. 

 1898. Metapho.nis pedinatias, Chevreux, '• R^vis. des Amphip. de la 



c6t« 0f;t5an de France," As.soc. Fran9aide pour Advanc. des Sci. p. 477 



(no description or figure). 



1 cannot but think that this must be the Phoxus simplex 

 of Bate. What is stated with respect to the want of eyes 

 may have arisen from his su.spicion that some special medium 

 that he employed may have destroyed them. 1st. 1 have 

 examined Bate's specimen in the Britisii Museum, and am 

 not disposed to question Jilr. Walker's opinion that it is 

 referable to Phoxocephalus llolbdlli; but it certainly is not 

 the specimen described and figured by Bate, for the antennae 

 are quite different. 2nd. As regards size, I have some 

 specimens f'rt)m Valentia which are much finer than usual 

 and as long as the line above Bate and Westwood's figure 

 Avhich indicates the length. 3rd. As regards theantennaj, the 

 (leserij>tion of Bate and Westwood does not agree with the 

 figure, where the rostrum is represented otdy as long as the 

 ptduticlts of the upper antenna.', and this is the case with the 

 present species ; and although the figure in the Brit. Mus. Cat. 

 does agree with the description, is it not more likely that the 



