AMPHIPOD GENUS LEPTOCHEIRUS. 585 



p. 91, as Leptocheirus pilostcs ; tidal zone ; bottom deposit, 



rather coarse sand. Norman (37) p. 369, as Leptocheirus 



pectinatus. 

 France : Oceanic Coast : Ohevreux (11) pp. 290, 309, as 



Ptilocheirus pectinatus ; 10-19 m. ; bottom deposit, nullipores 



and mud. Chevreux (15) p. 482, as Leptocheirus pilosus ; 



10-20 m. 

 Bay of Biscay: ss. 'Huxley,' 47° 48' K. ; 7" 46' W. ; 109 



fathoms. 

 Mediterranean : Chevreux (16) p. 91, as T^ejjtocheirus fasciatus. 



Provence : coast of Algeria: Corsica, dredged in 12 fathoms: 

 Chevreux (17) p. 4, as Leptocheirus fasciatus. 



Bay of Naples : Costa (19) p. 155, as Protomedeia fasc'mta. 

 Delia Valle (21) p. 430, as I^eptocheirus pilosus \ 10-20 m. ; 

 bottom deposit, sand. 



Adriatic : Grube (22) p. 73, as Protomedeia pllosa. Grube (24) 

 p. 403, as Protomedeia hirsutimana ? and Pr. pilosa. 

 Senegal : Chevreux (in litt.). 

 Wasin, Brit. E. Africa : Walker (51) p. 341, as Leptocheirus 



pilosus; 10 fathoms; bottom deposit, mud. 



Leptocheirus bispinosus Norman." (Plate XVIII. figs. 17-20, 

 Text-fig. 146.) 



1866. Protomedeia hirsutimana Heller (25) pp. 34 &, 35. 



1893. Leptocheirus guMatus Delia Valle (21) p. 430, pi. xii. 



figs. 15-24. 

 1908. Leptocheirus bispinosus Norman (38) p. 308, pi. xii. 



figs. 7-9; pi. xiii. figs. 1-3, 



The specimen described by Heller as Protomedeia hirsutimana 

 Sp. Bate is preserved in the Hofmuseum, Vienna. The de- 

 sci-iption and figiu-es of it, most kindly sent to me by Dr. Pesta, 

 prove it to belong to the same species as described by Norman 

 in 1908 under the name of L. bispinosus. • 



The guttatus of Delia Valle, in my opinion, must also be in- 

 cluded in this species. A comparison of the two accounts, Delia 

 Valle's and Norman's, leaves no room for doubt. The only point 

 of difference is in the number of joints in the accessory flagellum : 

 Delia Valle gives the number as 2, subequal in length, and as long, 

 taken together, as 2 joints of the primaiy flagellum; Norman 

 as 5, as long as 3 joints of the primary. It seems probable, either 

 that Delia Valle had a young specimen before him with only two 

 joints developed, or, what I think more likely, that the accessory 

 flagellum was broken. In the other specimens of this species (and, 

 indeed, in all the specimens of this genus that I have examined) 

 the terminal joint of the accessoiy flagellum is very small and 

 tipped with long setae, but Delia Valle says definitely that the 2nd 

 joint in his specimen was equal in length to the 1st, and in his 

 figure he shows only 2 small set* instead of the usual long apical 

 cluster, I have added below some details to the description given 



