PYCNOGONIDA— CALMAN. 51 



promineuce. The double dorsal tubercles of the lateral processes and first coxaj are 

 also beset with short spiues. The proboscis is about as long as the trunk, conical in 

 the smaller specimens, but becoming slightly pyriform in the larger, decurved, with a 

 slight constriction at one-third its length from the base. The transverse body-ridges 

 have acute spine-like median processes as tall as the ocular tubercle. The fourth 

 segment of the palp is not more than one-third longer than the second. The ovigers 

 are represented only by minute buds. 



In their spiny armature, these specimens resemble those described by Bouvier 

 (1906, p. 20) as A. curculio, but afterwards (1913, p. 127) regarded by him as the 

 young of A. gihbosa. They differ, however, in the form of the proboscis, which, in our 

 specimens, is much stouter, and in the larger specimens shows a tendency towards a 

 pyriform shape ; further, in our largest specimens the second segment of the palp is 

 three-quarters as long as the fourth, while in specimens of A. gihbosa, only a little larger, 

 the proportion, in Prof Bouvier's figure, is less than one-half 



Ammothea gihbosa (Mobius). 



Golossendeis gibhosa, Mobius, 1902, p. 192, PI. xxx, figs. 1-5. 



Ammothea curculio, Bouvier, 1906, p. 20 ; id., 1907, p. 40, figs. 19-22. 



Leionymplion gihhosum, Hodgson, 1907, p. 40. 



Leionymjilwn grande, Hodgson, 1907, p. 41, PI. vi. fig. 1 (wee Ammothea grandis, Pfeffer, 1889, 



p. 43). 

 Ammothea gibhosa, Bouvier, 1913, p. 127, figs. 78-82. 



Occurrence. — Station 220, off Cape Adare, 45-50 fiithoms ; 3 immature. 



Remarks. — Bouvier, while referring some of his specimens to A. grandis, Pfeffer, 

 and others to A. gibhosa (Mobius), expresses a doubt as to the separation of these two 

 species. He also points out that the " Discovery " specimen figured by Hodgson as 

 A. grandis shows some of the characters that he regards as distinctive of A. gihbosa. ' 



The specimens obtained by the " Terra Nova," which are all immature, undoubtedly 

 belong to the same species as the " Discovery " specimens. Like these, they differ 

 much from some South Georgia specimens in the Museum collection, which I take to 

 represent the A. grandis of Pfeffer and to be indistinguishable from the earlier 

 A. carolinensis of Leach (Caiman, 1915a, p. 314). The latter have the setules on the 

 body and limbs shorter, more closely set, and much less distinctly separated in 

 longitudinal bands, especially on the tibiae, than have the " Discovery " and "Terra 

 Nova " specimens ; further, the abdomen is much more horizontal, and the distal ridge 

 on the lateral processes is less distinctly bilobed. The median dorsal processes of the 

 body-ridges are not, however, noticeably higher in the one case than in the other, and 

 in none of the specimens are they so much expanded at the tip as in Bouvier's figure 

 of the adult A. gihbosa. The somewhat greater length of the propodus in the South 

 Georgia specimens also agrees with Bouvier's conception of A. grandis. On the other 

 hand, Hodgson, after examining the type-specimens of Mobius and of Pfeffer, states 

 that the specific identity of the " Discovery " specimens with the latter was established 



H 2 



