78 ALLAN HANCOCK PACIFIC EXPEDITIONS VOL. 7 



Family Pareulepidae, new name 



PAREULEPIDAE is proposed to replace the family name, 

 EULEPETHIDAE Chamberlin, because the type genus of the family 

 must be changed to Pareulepis Darboux (see below, under generic de- 

 scription). Only a single genus, Pareulepis, is known. 



Genus PAREULEPIS Darboux 



Eulepis Grube, 1875, p. 71 (not Dalman or Fitzenger. See Chamberlin, 



1919, p. 89). 

 Pareulepis Darboux, 1899, p. 116. 

 Eulepetkus Chamberlin, 1919a, p. 89. 



Body short, depressed, consisting of few segments (about 36 to 40). 

 Prostomium with 3 antennae and a pair of palpi. Elytra present to seg- 

 ment 23, disposed as in the SIGALIONIDAE on anterior segments; 

 posterior segments with modified cirri, present on all segments. Setae 

 simple, the notopodia with some slender capillaries, and some stout, 

 curved setae, their distal ends bent sharply at an angle to the main stem 

 (pi. 23, fig. 283). Neuropodial setae include a few smaller, superior pec- 

 tinated setae (pi. 23, fig. 288) and a deep fascicle of nearly straight 

 setae. Neuropodial acicula have a flattened chitinous piece at their distal 

 ends, embedded in the fleshy part of the lobe (pi. 23, fig. 280). 



Eulepis Grube was erected for the species, E. hamifera (1878b, p. 

 71) from the Philippines. Eulepis, however, has been shown to be pre- 

 occupied by Dalman and Fitzenger (see Chamberlin, 1919a, p. 89). 

 Pareulepis Darboux (1899, p. 116) was erected for Eulepis luyvillei 

 Mcintosh (1885, p. 131), and separated from Eulepis Grube on the as- 

 sumption that E. wyvillei lacked a segment between the first and sec- 

 ond elytral-bearing segments, that is, that elytra are inserted on seg- 

 ments 2, 3, 4 . . . There is a tendency for segments 3 and 4 to be more 

 or less fused dorsally (Fauvel, 1919, p. 337) which explains why seg- 

 ments 3 and 4 might have been confounded in the description of E. 

 wyvillei Mcintosh (1885, p. 131). "Mcintosh hat sich offenbar geirrt, 

 was aus den schwierig zu untersuchenden Verhaltnissen der vordersten 

 Segmente erklarbar ist" (Augener, 1918, p. 156). Eulepethus Cham- 

 berlin was not proposed until much later (1919a, p. 89). 



Eulepis wyvillei Mcintosh, from Bermuda, and E. splendida Tread- 

 well (1902, p. 189) from Puerto Rico, have been considered identical 



