24 CARL BOVALLIUS, AMPHIPODA HYPERIIDEA. I. 2. PARAPHRONIMID^. 



Syn. 1879. Paraphronima, CLAUS, i) — »Dev Organisraus der Phronimiden». Arb. Zool. 



lust. der Univeisität Wien. Vol. 2, p. 64 (6). 

 » » C. BovALLius. 1885. »On soiiie forgotten genera among the Amplii- 



podous Crustacea». Bih. t. K. Sv. Vet. Ak. 



Haudl. Bd. 10. N:o 14, p. 19. 

 » » J. V. Carus. 1885. Prodi-omus Fauna; Mediterranefe. Vol. I, p. 424. 



» » A. Gehstaeckeb. 1886. D:r H. G. Bronn's Klassen und Ordnuugen des 



Thiei-Eeichs. Bd. 5. Abth. 2, p. 489. 

 » M C. BoVALLlus. 1887 . »Systeraatical list of the Araphipoda Hyperiidea». 



Bill. t. K. Sv. Vet. Ak. Handl. Bd. 11. N:o 



16, p. 13. 

 » » Th. Stebbing. 1888. »Report on the Amphipoda». Voy. H. M. S. 



Challenger. Zoology. Vol. 29, p. 1335. 



The fii"st representative of this genus is, as far as I know, Hyperia pedestris, described 

 by Guérin-Méneville; he gave a very good drawing of it and a short description, 

 probably in the year 1836 in the work »Iconographie du Régne Animal de G. Cuvier. 

 Crustacés». Paris 1829 — 1843, p. 22, pl. 25, fig. 6. However, it was not mentioned by 

 H. Milne-Edwards in his classical work »Histoire des Crustacés» of 1840. Spence Bate 

 did not quote it in his Catalogue of the Amphipoda of the British Museum. A. Boeck ^) 

 in 1875 overlooked it; Th. Stebbing^) in 1888 cite Hi/jjeria pedestris in his excellent 

 review of the literature concerning the Amphipoda, but without any remarks on its place 

 in the system. I for my part am convinced that it is a true Paraphronima, and I think 

 that onl}' the examination of the drawing will be sufficient to prove its kindred. 



Claus in 1878*) mentioned, and in 1879 gave the diagnose of the new genus Pai-a- 

 phronima, at the same time he mentioned, rather than described, two species: Paraphro- 

 nima gracilis and P. crassipes. In 1885 (see above) the author of this treatise proposed 

 three new specific names: Paraphronima californica, P. Edwardsii and P. clypeata. 

 The first of them was låter (1887), when I had the opportunity of examining a male 

 specimen, made the type of a new genus Dairella. The second turned out to be only a raore 

 developed form of Paraphronima gracilis, Claus, the error owing to the very incomplete 

 original description of, the latter species. In 1887 (see abowe) I proposed the new specific 

 name Paraphronima pectinata for a Paraphronima distinguished by the strongly 

 pectinate armature of the inner ramus of the last pair of uropoda, but the subsequent 

 examination of new and fresh material, kindly entrusted to me by Professor T. Tullberg 

 of Upsala, proved that this pectination is only a sexual caracteristic, and that Para- 

 phronima pectinata was the male of P. clypeata. At the same time I found the male 

 of P. gracilis, which was not known by Claus. Just as this sheet was to be printed 



') Already in 1878 Claus mentions the new generic name Paraphronima in »Ueber Herz und Gefäss- 

 system der Hyperidem»; Zoologischer Anzeiger, I, p. 270, but without thi; slightest diagnose, therefor I must cite 

 »1879» as the right year for the date of the generie description. 



^) De Skandinaviske og Arktiske Amphipoder. 



^) »Report on the Amphipoda collected by H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873 — 1876.» Report on 

 the scientific results of the Voyage of H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873 — 1876. Zoology. Vol. 29, p. 163. 



*) See footnote '). 



