18 DR. H. J. HANSEN ON ANCTEOPUS BEANCHIATUS. 



I am therefore unable to state witli certainty whether it is an 

 immature female or perhaps an immature male. 



Position in the System. — The preceding description (with the 

 figures) shows that my statement in 1890 — which has been 

 quoted above — on the probable position of this aberrant genus 

 is tolerably correct. After the examination of the type I am 

 now much better acquainted with the genus, having studied all 

 features — especially the mouth-parts and the terminal part of the 

 thoracic legs — of any importance to a final judgment as to its 

 relationship ; and besides I am familiar with all the subfamilies 

 and main genera of the Cymothoidse. But in spite of this 

 knowledge, I am still rather uncertain whether I shall refer the 

 animal to the CirolanincB, or establish it as a type of a new sub- 

 family, Anuropiiice. It is easily seen that it is very distinct from 

 four of the subfamilies — Oorallanince, Barylrotince, Mginoe, and 

 CymotTioines, and that its mouth-parts show a much closer 

 resemblance to those of the Cirolanince than to the AlciroiiincB^ 

 only the moderately oblique direction of the mandibles and the 

 strongly-reduced maxillipeds without lobe from the second joint 

 pointing towards features met with in the last-named subfamily.. 

 The structure of the legs with their very short claws agrees 

 essentially with that in Cirolana. The shape, position, and 

 respiratory function of the uropods is an adaptation to be com- 

 pared with the supplementary branchiae in the genus Bathynomus 

 which belongs to the Cirolanince, and that character is therefore 

 of secondary value ; the disappearance of the eyes is also certainly 

 an adaptation and of secondary importance, being at most only 

 of generic value. The reduction of the antennulse is very inter- 

 esting ; it is certainly an excellent generic character, but scarcely 

 an important one for a subfamily, and nearly all the features 

 in which the mouth-parts differ from those of the Cirolanince 

 sens, strict., and especially from Eurydice, seem to be mere 

 reductions. While the maxillulse agree closely with those of 

 Eurydice, the maxillse differ as to one not very important point ; 

 and the mandibles, though showing some reductions and a more 

 oblique direction, agree moderately well Avith those in Eurydice 

 in essential points — the distal breadth of the mandible, the 

 breadth of the cutting-edge, the shape of the molar process. 

 The maxillipeds are much more reduced than in Cirolana- 



Eurydice ; the paragnatha are much shorter, rounded distally, &c. 



