TERRESTRIAL ISOPODA FROM NEW ZEALAND. 417 



Some Terrestrial Tsopoda from New Zealand auJ Tasmania, with Description 

 of a New Grenus. By Charles Chilton, M.A., D.Sc, LL.D., M.B., 

 CM., F.L.S., Professor of Biology, Canterbury College, New Zealand. 



(Plates 36 & 37.) 

 [Read 7tli May, 1914.] 



In this paper I establish a new genus for two New Zealand species of 

 terrestrial Isopoda. Both have been already described and provisionally 

 placed under the genus Haploplithalmus, to which the new genus seems 

 closely allied, but additional specimens recently obtained have permitted a 

 fuller investigation of them than was previously possible. 



I also include descriptions of a new species of HaplopUhalmus from 

 Tasmania, and of a new species of Cuharis from Auckland, New Zealand. 

 In both cases I have only a single specimen, and I have v/aited for several 

 years in the hope of obtaining others, but as no further specimens have been 

 obtained, and as the species seem to be well characterized and likely to be 

 easily recognized, I now venture to describe them. 



Family Trichoniscid^. 



In 1901 I described a new terrestrial Isopod from Greymouth, New 

 Zealand, under the name Haplop)litlialnms lielmsii, though I pointed out at the 

 time that it differed from that genus as described by Sars (1898, p. 166) in 

 having the Brst three (instead of two) segments of the pleon small and without 

 lateral expansions. In 1909 I described from Campbell Island, lying to the 

 south of New Zealand, another species, H. australis, which also differed in 

 this respect from the generic characters, and I stated that a new genus 

 would probably have to be established for these two species, though, as the 

 material at my disposal was small, I postponed doing so at the time. 



I have recently received from Mr. T. Hall several specimens collected at 

 Mt. Algidus, Rakaia Gorge, Canterbury, of an Isopod which at first appeared 

 distinct from both of those mentioned above, though agreeing with them in 

 the character referred to. I had commenced to describe this as a new species 

 and had drawn uj) a diagnosis for a new genus to include these forms. 

 Further investigation, however, has shown that these specimens are not 

 really distinct from Haplophtlialmus lielmsii, and that the characters that 

 appeared to distinguish them are due to the greater development of the 

 dorsal tubercles or crests in the larger and older specimens ; H. helmsii was 



LINN. JOURN. — ZOOLOGY, VOL. XXXII. 34 



