KONGL. SV. VET. AKADKMIEN8 HANDLINGAR. BAND. 22. N:0 7. 85 



1872 found that the name Metoecus must be rejected, as beirig preoccupied, he did not 

 substitute it with a new name but acccpted Tauria, Dana, as the synonym for Metoecus, 

 misled, I suppose, by the argumentation of" Spence Bate and Westwood, p. 519, in the 

 second volume of »The British Sessile-eyed Crustacea»; speaking on Hyperia tauriforviis 

 n. sp., they say naraely: 



»Dana established the germs Tauria for the reception of those species of Hyperia, 

 that ha ve the antero-inferior angle of the carpus of both pairs of gnathopoda (--=- first 

 and second pairs of penropoda) so far anteriorly produced as to extend to the extremity 

 of the propodos (== metacarpus) thus forming a tolerably perfect but compound chelate 

 organ. But so gradual is the development of this process from one species to another? 

 that we can see no clearly defined limit vvhere one genus may commence and the other 

 end. We have chosen a specitic name for our new species, which indicates its affinity 

 with Dana's proposed genus». 



BoECK maintaincd the specitic name used by Kroeyer and rcgarded Tauria medu- 

 sarum as the right name. 



In 1885') I proved, however, that Tauria, Dana, as mentioned above, p. 80, Avas 

 utterly misunderstood by Spence Bate and Westwood and by Boeck, and that it Avas 

 widely separated from Metoecus. Then I did not propose a neAv generic name but looked 

 upori Metoecus as belonging to Hyperia. 



As it seems to me not only inconvenient but contrary to reason to maintain a name, 

 it may be generic or specific, which depends only on an erroneous determination, and 

 such strictly being the case here with regard to Tauria medusaruin, I have rejected, 

 for the species in question, the generic name Tauria and the specific name medusarum, 

 substituting the former with Hyperoche^) and naming the old typical species of H. Kroeyer: 

 Hyperoche Kroeyeri'), in honour of the eminent Da,nish Carcinologist. 



Among the several species established by H. Milne Edwards and Dana in the 

 genera Hyperia and Lestrigonus none belongs to the genus Hyperoche. 



The first neAv addition to this genus Ave find in Hyperia Martinezii, brietly described 

 by Fritz MtJLLER in 1864.^) 



The next addition Avas made in 1868 by Spence Bate and W^estwood in the Avork 

 quoted above. The description of Hyperia tauriformis, hoAvever, is so meagre, and the 

 drawing so carelessly sketched, that it is quite impossible to judge if it is identical A\åth 

 any one of the låter named species, or if it is distinct. If the type specimens are pre- 

 served, and according to a passage in a treatise*) by the Rev. A. Merle Norman it is 

 probable that such may be the case, we do hope that the species may be reexarained 

 and duly placed in the system. In the same treatise Norman speaks about Hyperia. tauri- 

 formis as a synonym of Metoecus medusarum., Kroeyer, but oAving to the different shape 



') »On some forgotten genera anaoug the Amphipodous Crustacea». Bih. t. K. Sv. Vet Ak. Hand]. Bd. 

 10. N:o 14, p. 16. 



-) »Systeinatieal list of the Amphipoda Hyperiidea». Bih. t. K. Sv. Vet. Ak. Handl. Bd. 11. N:o 

 16, p. 17. 



^) Fiir Daewin. Leipzic, 1864, p. 52. 



*) »Shetland Final Dredging Report. Part. II. On the Crustacea» etc. Report of the .S8:th raeeting of 

 the British Association for the Advaneement of Science, held at Norwioh, 1868. London, 1869, p. 336. 



