Canon A. M. Norman on British Amphipoda. 335 



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

 " Pedes 3*" et 4*' paris [/. e. first and second pereeopods] ungue 

 multo breviore quam articulo 5*° elongato." 



The nails in P. oculatus are very long and afford a good 

 characteristic as compared with the short nails of Phoxo- 

 cephalus Holbolli. 



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

 {A. M. N. ; recorded in Shetland Report of 1868 as Phoxus 

 Holholli) : Mus, Nor. Seven miles off Bradda Head, Isle of 

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



Distrtb. Tromso, Finmark [J. S. Schneider) ; Naples 

 [A. M. N.) : Mus. Nor. Greenland (H. J. Hansen) ; Jan 

 Mayen ; Finmark and Norway coast as far south as Farsund 

 {G. 0. Sars). 



60. Phoxocephalus simplex (Bate). 



1857. Phoxus simplex, Bate, Ana. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 2, vol. ix. 



p. 525. 

 1861. Phoxus shnplex, Bate & Westwood, (1) vol. i. p. 140. 

 1896. Phoxocephalus simplex, Caiman, " Ou Species of Phoxocephalus 



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



fig. 3. 

 1896. Phoxocephalus jjectinatus, A. O. Walker, "On Two new Species 



of Amphipoda Gammarina," Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 6, vol. xvii. 



p. 34.3, pi. xvi. figs. 1-6, and vol. xviii. p. 156. 

 1896. Metaj)horns typicus, Bonnier, Results sci. de Campagne du 



' Caudan,' Edriophthalmes, p. 6.30, pi. xxxvii. fig. 1. 

 1898. Metaphoxus peeti7iatus, Chevreux, " Revis. des Amphip. de la 



cote ocean de France," Assoc. Fran9aise pour Advauc. des Sci. p. 477 



(no description or figure). 



I 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 suspicion that some special medium 

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

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

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

 referable to Phoxocephalus Holholli; 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 from Valentia which are much finer than usual 

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

 which indicates the length. 3i'd. As regards the antenna3, the 

 description of Bate and Westwood does not agree with the 

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

 peduncles 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 



