On the Classification of the Crustacea Choristopoda. 311 
G. 4. Urisres, Dana.*—Antenne agraene non appendiculate. Pedes Imi as 
chelati, 2di articulo styliformi confecti. 
8. Pedes Imi 2dique plus minusve subchelati. 
G. 5, Ano 0 Kr.+—Epimere permagne. Antenne superiores appendiculate, 
basi breves Maxillipedes lamellis internis grains Styli caudales postici 
biramei, bea punolAne 
. 6. Urornor, Dana—Epim ermagne, 5tis parvis. Antenne Ime brevi- 
ores, appendicalate, teat iat longato Styli cates postici longi, biramei, 
ramis foliaceis, ciliatis, Mandibule palpo 3-articulat 
Subfam. 3. LEUCO ito Vers Seen superiores basi plus minusve graciles. 
axillipedes elongati, far i, articulo longo unguiformi confecti, lamellis interne 
erbrevibus. Man dibulz sive Inger sive non palpigers, processu molari car 
semper ¢] 
G. 1. Srevornor, Dana.—Epimere permagne, 4te maxima, Ste parvule. Pedes 
4 antici subchelati, 2dis vaidiribas Antenne we sted pin eh non appen- 
diculate, Mandibule non palpiger car Styli wei 
Imi 2dique ramis bene subulati, 3tii : slanpbicinebiil eastalie ak crassa co poerseee 
. 2, Levcornon, Leach.} ig pear mace ne se arvule. Pedes 4 = sab 
aa 2dis validioribus superiores longiores, non fa ndicu 
dibule palpigere. Stylt hie toti — ramis subulat 
ae — est Microcheles, Kréyer,$ Amphithoe affinis, cul andibule processu 
molari carentes: quoque Amphithoe Mavionis, Edw., cui poles non palpigerse.} 
Subfam. 4. GAMM BULA — Antenne Ime basi graciles. Maxillipedes sat poe 
lamellis internis sat pat Mandibule acie denticulaté ‘nstructee et alterd 
pee aa i Gpogue " processu sec et — 3-articulato. Pedes 10 postici non And! 
P 
A. FRONS PRODUCTUS ET INFRA pagan NON EST, ANTENNIS IMIS INFERIORIBUS 
ANTERIOR. RIBUS. 
1. Styli jadi postici biramei, ramis subcequis. 
A, PEDES 2DI NON SUBCHELATI. 
G.1, a Owen.—Antenne quatuor —— — non appendiculate. 
Epimere magn. Pedes 2di filiformes, manu 0 tes, Imi manu vix 
ect. 
G. 2. Auisrorus, Edw. hao Ime breves, appendiculate. Epimere magne. 
Pedes Imi validi non subchelati. 
t" n Tie J. Sci. 2}. viii, 135. The genus Stenia is rejected. 
i = 256, and iv, 164 
s Ephippiphor a of White (Ann. and _— N. Hist. [2], i, 226, 1848) has 
aa but b iniediy described, and we age! er net its exact relation to = 
of the genera of Lysianassine. The h the epimerais 
large, the superior antenn ppatiicalat ae mothe 1 stylets elongate as in 
onyx and pn ort like the Orchestide. But the character the ation of 
the 4 anterior legs is not stated, neither are they in vi O mg a 
on plate 5 of the Zool. of the Erebus and Terror. e represen age 
6th pair of legs dime , or the joints twice as long as the follow- 
ms joint of the 6th smaller than that of the 5th or 7 
t Krayer states that the bi-articwlate finger of page: is not a ae arcs 
characte nd adds*two species to s acter 
imperfect ‘ the genus one 1849, and [2], i, p. 539 
iv, i 
1815) Wis tecis a eee ft ye ele n the prolongation of "Ye infe- 
mainly on 
0! 
rior ces aie of the ae een ‘rhie rotngation is honk ‘develo in ~ 
pede: co 
very ‘eat ol ati to the 1st psi aie a ith, pf eo 5th, 
oo th; short 3d joint of f the ao r antenne, and 
other eli ia os the very aN Re 
, 
