58 8. 0. SARS, [ν.8. m 
size, with the outer edge smooth and produced at the end to a dentiform pro- 
jection, tip more op less obliquely truncated, with the inner corner projecting 
beyond the spine of the outer, and having a small apical segment cut off by 
a transverse suture. Anterior and posterior lips, as also the mandibles (Pl. III, 
figs 5, 6) of the usual structure. First pair of maxillæ (Pl. III, fig. 7) with 
the exognate quite rudimentary, forming only a slight lamellar ridge finely 
ciliated on the edge, but without any trace of sete. Second pair of maxillæ 
(Pl. III, fig. 8, Pl. IV, V, VI, Πα. ὅ) with the terminal joint of the palp oval 
in form, and edged exteriorly by strong ciliated setae; exognath comparati- 
vely small and triangular in form, its outer edge but slightly curved, mar- 
ginal setze rather short and uniform in size. Maxillipeds (Pl. HI, fig. 9) with 
the: basal lobe rather large, outer masticatory lobe well-developed, though 
scarcely as large as the basal one. Gnathopoda (Pl. IIT, fig. 10) comparati- 
vely less robust than in Paramysis, otherwise of much the same structure. 
Pereiopoda (Pl. IH, fig. 11; Pl. IV, V, VI, fig. 6) likewise rather similar 
to those in the said genus, though comparatively less robust, with the ischial 
and meral joints less expanded, tarsal part quadriarticulate, with the 1* 
articulation very short and obliquely truncated at the tip, daetylar joint 
small, with the terminal claw well defined from the joint and very slender 
(see Pl. III, fig. 12, Pl. V, VI, fig. 7). Outer sexual appendages of male 
as also the pleopoda (PE AV, figs 11, 12; Pl: V; VI, figs 12, 13) of a simi- 
lar structure as in Paramysis: Telson (PL III, fig. 14, Pl. IV, fig. 7, Pl. V, 
VI, fig. 8) of moderate size, oblong quadrangular in form, and somewhat 
tapering distally, lateral edges densely spinulose, apical sinus very shallow 
or quite obsolete, its edge bordered. by a.dense series of spiniform pro- 
jections, arranged. in a a comb- like. manner. Uropoda of the usual 
structure, 
` Remarks. --- "This genus was characterised by Mr. Czerniavsky as 
being, intermediate between Mysis s. str, and Päramysis. It comes, however, 
in fact, still nearer to the genus Austromysis of the same author, the type . 
of which is M. Helleri G. O. Sars. The latter genus was not adopted by the 
Rev. Mr. Norman, who referred its species to his genus Schistomysis, founded 
upon some of the species referred by Mr. Czerniavsky to his genus Syn- 
mysis. I fully agree. with Mr. Norman, that the 3 species: spiritus, M. 
ornata and M: assimilis cannot. properly be placed in the same genus with 
"M. ‘flexuosa. and: M. neglecta; which; according to that author, belong to the 
genus Macromysis' of White: On the other hand, I think that the genus : 
Austromysis of Czerniavsky may be retained in the sense of that author, 
probably also the British species M. Parkeri. From the last named 
‘including 
gengs the present one is chiefly: distinguished by the less ue eege 
. Mélanges biologiques. T. XIII, p. 406. 
