90 CARL BOVALLIUS, AMPHIPODA HYPERIIDEA. I. 2. HYPERIIDiE. 



sarum {Metoecus), Kroeykr, and gives as doubtful synonyms Cancer meditsanim, O. F. 

 Muller, and Oniscus medusarum, O. Fabricius, it is, howevei", none of these species but, 

 according to my examination of his specimens, Hyperoche Liietkeni, C. Bovallius. 



A. Merle Norman in 18690 quotes Metoecus medusarum, Kroeyer, from the Shet- 

 land Isles. To judge from the short description it is clear that the animal in question 

 is not identical \vith Kroeyer's species. If it may be an Hyperoche abyssorum or a H. 

 Liietkeni I am not able to decide. 



A. BoECK in 1870 1. c., p. 86 (6) cites Kroeyer's species as Metoecus medusarum, 

 O. Fabricius, and gives a good diagnosis in latin, which runs: 



y^Pedes 1 paris articulo 3tio in margine jjosteriore ad radicem calcis producto. Pedes 

 3tii et 4ti paris articulo tertio perbrevi, vix longiore qvam lato. Pedes trium parium ulti- 

 morum articulo 3tio perbrevi, 4to longitudinem duplam articuli 3tii superanti. Pedes salta- 

 torii ultimi paris pedunculo pradongato fere ter longiore qvam ram o exteriören. 



In 1872 1. c, p. 82, he calls it Tauria medusarum, O. Fabricius; with the same 

 diagnosis as in his earlier work. In 1882 G. O. Saks 1. c, p. 75, unites Tauria abys- 

 sorum, a by BoECK in 1870 established new species, with Kroeyer's old species under the 

 name Tauria, m.edusarum, O. Fabricius. In 1885 1. c, p. 17, I called the present species 

 Hyperia Kroeyeri, n. n. and in 1887 1. c, p. 18, Hyperoche Kroeyeri. The same 

 year H. J. Hansen 1. c, p. 58, rejects the specific name proposed by me, and takes back 

 that used by Kroey^er, uniting with it my new species Hyperoche Luetkeni, and calling 

 the whole Hyperoche medusarum, Kroeyer. In 1888 Tu. Stebbing \. c, p. 1399, accepts 

 the views of Hansen. 



Hyperoche Kroeyeri is easily distinguished from all the other species of the 

 genus by the length of the last three pairs of peraaopoda and by the curved hind margin 

 of the carpus of the third and fourth pairs. Also the form of the first and second pairs 

 is different, according to the drawings of Kroeyer, given in facsimile above, p. 87, tig. 

 8 — 10, the front margins of the carpus and metacarpus being strongly curved. 



Here follows a description of the animal principally taken from the description of 

 Kroey'ee, with some additions derived from the examination of his drawings: 



The perceon is thick and tumid, the head large, and the pleon and urus narrow, 

 in habitus just between a Hyperia and an Euthemisto. 



The head is large, thick, egg-shaped, much deeper than long, anteriorly truncated, 

 with a distinct antennal groove. 



The first pair of antennw (fig. 2) in the female are a little longer than the head; 

 the first joint of the peduncle is twice as long as the two foUowing joints together, the 

 second and third joints are subequal in length; the flagellum shows only onc joint, which 

 is more than twice as long as the whole peduncle; it is fringed with long hairs along 

 the under-side. 



') »Shetland Final Dredgiiig Eeport. Part. II. On the Cnistacea» etc. Eeport of the .S8th Meeting of 

 the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held at Norwich, 1868. London 1869, p. 287. 



