102 
pt. 2, (1905) p. 23, 72, Pl. 5, figs. 1—7, and Tattersall, Nordisches 
Plankton vol. 6, Lief. 14, 1911, p. 187, figs. 1—7), whilst it is 
very different from M. typica. The form of the body, the mandibles 
and the natatory legs which (probably) have the same form as in 
the genus Eurycope, are such essential differences from Munnopsis, 
that it seems to me 
necessary to establish 
a separate genus for 
it, for which I propose 
the generic name 
Munneurycope. This 
genus besides com- 
prises the 3 species 
M. longicornis H. J. 
Hansen, /M. Murrayi 
Walker, and MM. ocean- 
ica Tattersall. I can- 
not agree with Tattersall who is of opinion (1. e. 1904 (1905), p. 24) 
thatall these species belong to the genus Munnopsis G. O. Sars. How 
the relationship is to the 3 species of F. Beddard in Challenger 
Report, Isopoda, cannot be decided; but it must be taken for 
granted that Sars is right, when he says (Account, vol. 2, Isopoda 
1900, p. 133) ,,it is, however. somewhat questionable, if all these 
species are actually referable to the present genus" (viz. Munnopsis). 
Md. Ms. I 
Fig. 8. Munneurycope Tjalfiensis. 
Cutting edge of Md. and Mx. 1. 
81. Phryxus abdominalis Kr. 
Bopyrus abdominalis Krøyer, Naturhist. Tidsskrift, vol.3, 1840, p. 102-12, 
289-99 2 
— — — in Gaimard, Voyage en Scand., Crust., 1846 
3 (1849?), Pl. 29, fig. 1 
Phryxus — G. 0. Sars, Account vol. 2, lags 1900, p- 215, 
Pl. 90-91. 
E = Richardson, Isop. of N. Am., Bull. U. 8. Nat. Mu- 
seum, No. 54, 1905, p. 500 (ubi litt.), fig- 550-52. 
i — HL J. Hansen, V. Grønland 1887, p- 196. 
