AMPHIPODA OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 145 
by Spence Bate & Westwood, who gave a fuller diagnosis in 1863 
[1. p. 311]; in 1876 Humbert gave a still fuller description 
[18. p. 312]; and more recently Wrzesniowski [20. p. 620] 
has given a full critical history and account of the genus, 
followed by a Latin diagnosis, of which I give a translation 
here :— 
“* Hyes none (or rudimentary). 
“ Body compressed, not carinate. Fourth and fifth segments of 
the pleon bearing slender setules. Epimera small. 
“ Superior antenne longer than the inferior, with a secondary 
appendage of not more than two joints; primary flagellum 
bearing olfactory sete and hyaline bacilli. Flagellum of inferior 
antenne in both sexes bearing only hyaline bacilli. 
“ Gnathopoda similar, subchelate, with the penultimate joint 
(propodos) dilated, of nearly the same form in both sexes. 
“Terminal uropoda biramous, inner ramus very small, outer 
ramus elongate, two-jointed (or one-jointed ?). 
“Telson more or less deeply cleft. 
“Molar tubercle of the mandibles supplied with a long seta; 
palp narrow, three-jointed. 
“ First maxille furnished with forked spines ; palp large, two- 
jointed, of the same form in the right and left maxille, armed at 
the apex with spines and sete ; inner lobe narrow, bearing only 
two or three setz at the apex. 
“Second maxilla with the inner lobe bearing sete at the apex 
only. 
“ Outer lobe of the maxillipedes armed on its inner margin with 
teeth, at the apex with teeth and strong sete; inner lobe armed 
at the apex with three strong teeth and a very few setz, the 
inner margin destitute of sete ; palp elongate, the last joint very 
narrow towards the apex, unguiform.” 
This is rather a long and unwieldy generic description, and no 
doubt the diagnosis could be considerably curtailed if Wephargus 
were compared with allied genera and the characters common to 
several genera carefully eliminated ; and this will I hope be done 
by the Rev. T. R. R. Stebbing in his account of the Amphipoda 
prepared for ‘ Das Tierreich.’ In his paper on new genera of 
the Gammaride already published [31] he does not give revised 
diagnoses of the genera previously known, but among the new 
genera he gives one, Neoniphargus, which appears to come very 
close to Niphargus, the only important difference being that in 
