Species of Amphipodous Crustaceans. 369 



distally. In the last legs the hand is long and thhi, the nail 

 much shorter. 



The first three segments of the pleon are infero-posteriorly 

 rounded, with edges smooth, except that the first has one small 

 indent ; the pleopoda of these segments have bulky peduncles 

 with small rami. Of the uropoda the first pair have long 

 peduncles, carrying two spines on the upper margin and one 

 distally below ; the outer branch ends in two small spines, 

 the inner and longer branch in one long spine attended by two 

 little ones. The second uropods are similar, except that the 

 peduncle is shorter and without spines; the third have the 

 peduncle still shorter, and short rami, which except in length 

 resemble those of the other pairs. 



The telson is tubular, its upper surface a little concave, 

 with a pair of slightly curved spines standing apart on the 

 distal end. 



It seems to come within the unhappily named subfamily of 

 Microdeutopinas (Boeck), which includes genera that have the 

 second gnathopods larger than the first, as well as those that 

 have the first larger than the second. It comes near to the 

 genera Ga77tmarops is (L\\\jehovg)=Eurystheus {Sp. Bate), and 

 Podoceropsis (A. l^oeck.) = A^cen^a (kSp. Bate) ; and in this latter 

 I venture to include it, although it has a secondary flagellum, 

 contrary to a generic character assigned by Boeck to Podoce- 

 ro]3sisj and the antennae are not subequal, as required by one 

 of Mr. Spence Bate's generic characters of Ncenia. But the 

 relative lengths of antennae vary with age, sex, and size of 

 specimen in many cases, and the absence of a secondary 

 flagellum cannot be depended on. This latter is given as 

 one of the generic distinctions between Dryope (Bate) and 

 Unciola (Say) ; but, after all, Dryope crenatipalmata, which is 

 plentiful at Tenby, undoubtedly possesses the secondary ap- 

 pendage in question ; and Fritz Miiller, in his ' Facts for Dar- 

 win ' (translation by Dallas, p. 11), names several genera in 

 which he has found it, though its presence in them had been 

 previously undetected. 



The inconvenience of the needless multiplication of genera 

 is illustrated by the present species, which has claims on more 

 than one, and ought perhaps on the present system to carry 

 its peculiar second coxae into a new genus of its own, so making 

 a third in a trio which might far better be grouped under a 

 single generic name. I venture to hope that whoever nexs 

 rearranges the Amphipoda will group together Microdeutopui 

 (Costa), Aora (Kroyer), Autonoe (Bruzelius), Stimjjsonia 

 (Bate) into one genus, and Gammaropsis and Podocerops is into 

 another. 



An7i. & Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 5. Vol. ii. 25 



