388 DR. W. M. TATTERSALL ON THE STOMATOPODA AND 



Tlie species of this genus are difficult to determine in the absence of: the 

 second pair of legs, and 1 have not attempted a specific identification in this 

 case. 



Periclimenes sp. ? 



Locality. Station VII. A, one, 5 mm. 



Remarks. This small specimen belongs to the subgenus Cristiger and is 



.most closely allied to P. potina, Nobili. The rostral formula is .- and all the 



teeth are on the rostrum, none on the carapace behind the orbit. There is 

 no supra- orbital spine. 



Genus Harpilius, Dana, 1852. 



The type species of the genus is Harpilius lutescens, Dana, and Borradaile, 

 on the evidence of Sollaud (li'10) that the third maxilliped in this genus 

 has no arthrobranch (although Sollaud does not say what, species lie has 

 examined), coupled with the remarkable form of the second maxilliped 

 figured for the type species by Dana, has instituted a new genus Harpiliopsis 

 to include two species, H. beaupresi and H. depressus, which have the second 

 maxillipeds of normal form and arthrobranchs on the third maxillipeds. 

 The validity of the genus Harpiliopsis seems to me to be questionable. _ The 

 addition of a single line to Dana's figure (the line showing the contour of 

 the antepenultimate joint) will give a form of second maxilliped not unlike 

 that depicted by Borradaile for H. depressus. It is more reasonable to 

 imagine that this line has been accidentally omitted from Dana's figure than 

 to suppose that H. lutescens really has the remarkable form of second 

 maxilliped actually figured. H. lutescens is otherwise so closely similar to 

 H. depressus as to be doubtfully distinct. The latter species has normal 

 second maxillipeds, and on Borradaile's evidence as well as my own, has 

 an arthrobranch on the third maxilliped. So that if my suggestion as 

 to Dana's figure be accepted, Harpiliopsis at once becomes a synonym of 

 Harpilius. 



On the other hand, specimens which I have referred to H. gerlachei, Nobili, 

 do not appear to possess an arthrobranch on the third maxillipeds, and they 

 further differ from all the other species of the genus in the absence of a 

 hepatic spine. It would appear therefore that if a new genus is required, it 

 must be instituted to receive H. gerlachei. Until more evidence is -forth- 

 coming as to what species of Harpilius Sollaud has examined with reference 

 to the presence or absence of arthrobranchs on the third maxillipeds, it would 

 be premature to define a new genus for H. gerlachei and I prefer, at present, 

 to include all the species in one genus. 



