KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND. 22. N:i) 7. 77 



themisto ii. g. and Themisto. In 1872 lic citcd as ^r?(« merabers of the family, Hyperia, 

 Tauria, Paratheniisto, and Themisto; as pivbahly belonging to the fatnily, Cyllojjus; and, 

 as possibh/ belonging to it, the, genera Vihilia, Dairinia, Tyro, and Cystosoma. In the 

 same year Claus enuinerated the genera Hyperia, Themisto, Cyllopus, and Cystisoma, 

 as constituting the fainily. In 1875 he gave a diagnosis of the family, recording it as 

 the second of the four families constituting the tribe ^iHyperina'» ; he enuinerated the 

 following eight genera as belonging to the family, Hyperia, Tauria, Cyllopus, Metoecus, 

 Cystosoma, Tyro^ Themisto, and Anchylomera. In 1879 he gave a new diagnosis of the 

 family in bis »Der Oi-ganisinus der Phronimiden», mentioning the same genera as in 1872; 

 at the same occasion he described a new genus, Phroniinopsis, which according to iny 

 opinion belongs to Hyperiida;; he placed it, however, in the family PJironimidoi. 



In the same year Geo. M. Thomson, describing new Crustaceans from New Zealand, 

 gave a diagnosis of the family Hyperidte, citing Spence Bate as author of the fa- 

 mily-name. 



In 1880 Claus repeated the description of the family of 1875, oidy excluding the 

 genus Änchylouiera which was transferred to the family Phronimidce. 



In 1885 J. V. Carus translated in latin the diagnosis given by Claus in 1879, and 

 cited the genus Hyperia. The same year I proved') that Tauria, Dana, was not identical 

 with Metoecus, Kroeyek, and that Lanceola, Th. Say, was a genus of its own, not at all sy- 

 noiiymous with Hyperia, Låteeille. At that occasion I did not regard Metoecus as ge- 

 nerically distinct from Hyperia. A. Gerstaecker in 1886 ranged the following genera 

 in the family Hyperida^: Themisto, Cyllopus, Cystosoma, Tyro, Hyperia with the sy- 

 nonyms Metoecus and Tauria, further Daira, Mimonectes, C Bovallius, and Lanceola, 

 Th. Say. In 1887, in »Systematical list of the Amphipoda Hypei^iidea», I excluded from 

 the family all the genera having a fcAv-jointed flagellum in the first pair of antennse of 

 the male, viz; Tyro, Lanceola, Cyllopus, Daira, Cystosoma, and Mimonectes; from the 

 family Phronimidce I transferred to Hyperiidaj the genus Phronimopsis, Claus, and 

 proposed some new generic names, viz; Hyperoche instead of Metoecus, Kroeyer,. 

 lulopis"), Hyperiella, and Themistella; the name Themisto being preoccupied I correct- 

 ed it to Euthemisto, Guéein; thus, according to my systematical views, the famil}' 

 consisted of the genera: Hyperia, lulopis, Hyperoche, Tauria, Hyperiella, Para- 

 themisto, Euthemisto, Themistella and Phrominopsis. In the same year I gave 

 in another paper, »Arctic and Antarctic Hyperids», short diagnoses of the mentioned ge- 

 nera except lulopis, Themistella and Phronimopsis. 



At least Th. Stebbing in his »Report on the Challenger-Amphipoda», in 1888, took 

 the family within the limits I bad proposed, and described new species of the genera: 

 Phronimopsis, Hyperia, Hyperoche, Hyperiella, Euthemisto, and Parathemisto. 



The Hyperite have by many authors been called parasites, because tbey have been 

 observed and often taken under and within yellow-lishes, I think this inanner of living raight 



') »On some forgotten genera jimoug the Amphipodons Crustacea». Bih. t. K. Sv. Vet. Ak. Handl. Bd. 

 10. N:o 14, p. 16. 



-) Corrected here to Euiulopis, to avoid mistake with the earlier name lulopsis, given to a Myriapod. 



