ISOPOD ANUnOPUS BRANCHIATUS. 13 



equivalence betweeu-the families, I established the grouj) Cymo- 

 tlioidse, sens, lat., as a family of the same value as the families 

 Anthuridse, Bopyridse (Epicarida), &c. The six above-named 

 families were now considered as subfamilies, Cirolanince, Goralla- 

 nincs, &c., of the family Cymothoida3. 



In the above-named paper of 1890 I have allowed two-thirds 

 of a page (pp. 254-255) to an extract and critical review of 

 Beddard's description and drawings of Anuroims hranchiatus. 

 I will here only translate the following lines:— "As a kind of 

 reswiiie, I can only say that Anuropus either, and probably, must 

 beloDg to my family Cirolanidss, or that it, if the structure of 

 the mouth should present unknown and deviatiug features of 

 significance, must be established as the type of a new family." 

 When the arrangement in my Plankton paper is followed, the 

 result will therefore be that Anuropus must either be referred to 

 the subfamily Cirolanince, or established as the type of a new sub- 

 family, AnuropincE, the seventh one of the family Cymothoida;. 



In his very interesting and useful book, ' A History of Crus- 

 •tacea — Eecent Malacostraca,' 1893 (luternat. Scient, Series), 

 the Rev. T. E. R. Stebbing adopts my arrangement of the group ; 

 but on Anuropus he writes (p. 345) that it "may have greater 

 claims to be the type of a distinct family, Anuropid?e, since, in 

 addition to the conversion of the uropods into branchial pleopods, 

 and the absence of eyes, the first antennae have onl}' two joints, 

 and the very short ' palp ' of the maxillipeds consists of a single 

 joint." As to this view, I refer to the following pages. I am 

 not aware that any other author has contributed to the discussion 

 of the systematic position of this aberrant genus. 



During a stay in London in July and August 1902, 1 took the 

 good opportunity to examine the type-specimen of Anuropus 

 preserved in the British Museum (Natural History). I am much 

 indebted to Professor F. Jeffrey Bell for the permission to study 

 that interesting animal, and I beg him to accept my sincere 

 thanks. The specimen proved to be rather badly preserved : of 

 the thoracic legs only two were complete (or nearly so) ; the 

 antennae and the mandibular palpi were incomplete; of the mouth- 

 parts the three posterior appendages on the left side had been 

 removed, and could not be found in the collection. I did not 

 remove by dissection any of the remaining mouth-parts; the shape 

 and structure of the mandibles could be studied J^'ithout much 

 difficulty. In order to see the maxillula and the maxilla I have 



