TANAIDACEA AND ISOPODA— TATTERSALL. 201 



present specimen approaches most nearly to the small unnamed specimen figured by 

 him {loG. cit., p. 544, text-fig. 70). It differs from this form, and indeed from all 

 Vanhoffen's species, in having distinct eyes, though they are almost colourless. Like 

 Vanhoffen's specimen, the present one has the lateral parts of the head, thoracic 

 somites and abdomen microscopically serrulated. The serrulations are not so coarse 

 as Vanhoffen shows, but I think this is due to the difficulty of indicating such 

 minute serrulations accurately rather than to any actual difference in the specimens. 

 The lateral margins of the abdomen in both species are armed with five small spines. 

 Vanhoffen's specimen measured only 2-5 mm. in length and was immature. I think 

 it is cjuite possible that in so small a specimen the eyes have been overlooked, having 

 regard to their almost colourless appearance. If this is so, I should have no hesitation 

 in identifying my specimen with Vanhoffen's species. 



Genus NOTASELLUS, Pfeffer. 



6. Notasellus sarsi, Pfeffer. 



N. sarsi, Pfeffer, 1887, p. 125, pi. VII, figs. 5-28; N. australis, Hodgson, 1902, p. 251, 

 pi. XXXVI; Ptichardson, 1906 (2), p. 13; Richardson, 1908, p. 5; Hodgson, 1910, 

 p. 49 ; Richardson, 1913, p. 17 ; N. sarsi, Vanhijffen, 1914, p. 532. 



Occurence. — Station 220, off" Cape Adare, mouth of Robertson's Bay, 45-50 

 fathoms, bottom fauna, three females, 4 • 5 mm. Cumberland Bay, South Georgia, 

 December, 1913, collected by P. Stammwitz, fifteen specimens. 



Remarks. — In separating N. australis from N. sarsi Hodgson relied mainly on 

 the length of the uropods in his specimens compared with that shown in Pfeffer's 

 figure. Hodgson's specific diagnosis reads : " Uropoda biramous, longer than the 

 urosome, which is approximately as long as broad and terminates in a small rounded 

 lobe between them." Pfeffer's figure shows the uropods to be considerably shorter 

 than the urosome, but the examination of the above specimens from the type locality 

 reveals the fact that the uropods are much longer than shown by Pfeffer, are actually 

 longer than the urosome, and are in fact very much as figured by Hodgson for 

 N. australis. Pfeffer's figure undoubtedly conveys a wrong impression of the size of 

 the uropods in this species ; and Vanhoffen, who examined specimens from Kerguelen, 

 suggests that the specimen from which the figure was taken had regenerated uropods, 

 which would be shorter than the original ones. This suggestion is probably correct, 

 and my observations on specimens from the type locality lend support to Vanhoffen's 

 suspicions that the two suggested species are really one, since the size of the uropods 

 was one of the main characters used for their separation. The second main point of 

 difference, noted by Miss Eichardson, relates to the length of the rostrum. In 

 N. sarsi, according to Pfeffer, the rostral process is as long as the head, whereas in 

 N. australis Richardson says it is only about half as long as the head. This difference 

 disappears in the light of Vanhoffen's observations on specimens from Kerguelen, in 

 which he found that small specimens agree with N. australis and large ones with 



2 G 2 



