140 CARL BOVALLIUS, AMPHIPODA HYPERIIDEA. I. 2. HYPERIIDJB. 



Hyperia, 



complete it is iiiipossible to prove this \vith auy degree of cei'tainty. On the same occasion 

 he proposed the new naine Hyperia ohlivia for a Hyperid, which however certainly is 

 a Parathemisto. 



H. MiLNE Edwards in 1840 gave an elaborate description of Hyperia Latreillei 

 and proposed a new species with the name H. Gaudichaudii. 



Dana in 1852 in his fundamental work »Crustacea of the United States Exploring 

 Expedition 1835 — 42» described three new species under the generic name Lestrigonus 

 and two new ones under the name Hyperia. Oi th& iovxnev Lestrigonus ferushs ^rdbsXAj 

 a Hyperia, here below recorded as H. fera, Dana; the second, Lestrigonus fuscus, is a 

 Themistella, described below as T. fusca, Dana; the third, Lestrigonus rubescens, is most 

 likely a Parathemisto, given as P. rubescens, Dana, below; moreover he described with some 

 hesitation as Lestrigonus Fahrei, H. Milne Edwards, an aninial which is not identical 

 with that species, but is here renamed as Hyperia Dana; n. n. Of the two species a- 

 scribed to the genus Hyperia the first is a true Hyperia, H. agilis, the second H. trigona 

 is a distinct Parathemisto, given as P. trigona, Dana, below. 



Costa in 1857^) described a new species, Hyperia jyuya, which if it belongs to 

 the family Hyperiidaj at all, probably may be a Themistella, but the description is so 

 meagre that it is very uncertain if I am right in this supposition, and it is possible that 

 Stebbing is right in interpreting it as a Lycseid (1. c. p. 299). 



In 1861 A. BoECK instituted two new species. The first, Hyperia spinipes, is un- 

 doubtedly a synonym for Hyperia medusarum, O. F. Muller, the second, Lestrigonus 

 Boeckii, was withdrawn by the author himself, who in 1872 made it synonymous with 

 Hyperia medusarum, but it is probably identical with Hyperia Latreillei, as will be 

 seen below. 



Spence Bate in 1862 recorded and iigured all previously described species of Hy- 

 peria and Lestrigonus, but unfortunately he was not very successful in his Identification s 

 and thus gave rise to a great confusion in the nomenclature, and for this reason I think 

 it necessary to make a revision of his species and to place them under their right names. 

 The first species mentioned Lestrigonus exulans, Kroeyer, is possibly identical with Kroeyer's 

 species, and most likely synonymous with Hyperia galba, Montagu. The second species 

 Lestrigonus Gaudichaudii, H. Milne Edwards, is probably the true Hyperia Gaudi- 

 chaudii. The third, Lestrigonus Kinahani, n. sp., is, as far as it is possible to judge from 

 the meagre description and the i"ough drawing sj^nonymous with Hyperia Latreillei- 

 The fourth species Lestrigonus rubescens. Dana, is certainly not identical with Dana's spe- 

 cies, which I above supposed to be a Parathemisto, but a true Hyperia, nearly related to 

 H. Latreillei, but according to the description of Spence Bate a distinct species, given below 

 as Hyperia Normani, n. n. The fifth species, Lestrigonus Fabreii, H.Milne Edwards, 

 is not identical with Milne Edwards' species, but with that of Dana, the description 

 and drawing being copied from him, and for this reason I give it below as a syno- 

 nym of Hyperia Danaä. Of the sixth and seventh species, Lestrigonus fems, Dana, 

 and L. fuscus. Dana, both descriptions and drawings are copied from Dana, and thus 



') AcHiLLE Costa. uUicerche sui crostacei Amtipodi del reguo di Napoli.» Memorie della Eeale Aoca- 

 deraia de Scienze di Napoli. Vol. 1, p. 165, pl. 4, fig. 11. 



