Crustacea.] SUB ANTARCTIC ISLANDS OF NEW ZEALAND. 617 



As the result of these considerations it seems clear that Nannonyx thomsoni, 

 Stebbing, and Socarnoides kergueleni, Stebbing, must be united. The reasons for 

 doing this seem to be confirmed by a consideration of the characters of Nannonyx 

 kidderi (S. I. Smith) from Kerguelen Island. In 1888 Mr, Stebbing compared speci- 

 mens of this species with his Socarnoides kergueleni, and apparently considered it 

 as belonging to the same genus and as presenting some resemblance to his species, 

 though he points out various differences, one of the most important of which is that 

 the telson is slightly excavated, not cleft. In 1906, however, he placed Smith's 

 species under Nannonyx next to N. thomsoni, to which he evidently then considered 

 it to be closely related. The explanation of this apparent inconsistency is, I think, 

 evident — viz., that Nannonyx thomsoni and Socarnoides kergueleni are both identical 

 with N. kidderi. 



I think it is extremely likely that Lysianassa nitens and L. australiensis, Has- 

 well, from iVustralia, both belong to this widely spread species, N. kidderi. Miers has 

 referred various specimens from Australia somewhat doubtfully to Socarnes krijyeri 

 (White), a species which was originally described under the genus Efhifpifhora, 

 and at the same time points out that his specimens are probably nearly related to 

 Haswell's species. It is probable that these specimens examined by Miers also belong 

 to the species now under consideration, but I cannot refer this species to Ephippifhora 

 kriiyeri, White, as described by Spence Bate in his " Catalogue of the Amphipoda 

 in the British Museum " ; and as the type of that species in the British Museum 

 when examined by Miers many years ago was dried, and lacked the appendages 

 that are most desired for comparison, it is perhaps hopeless to endeavour to ascertain 

 now what species was really described under that name by White. 



After I had come to the conclusions stated above I was pleased to find that they 

 were to a large extent anticipated and confirmed by Mr. G. M. Thomson, for in a 

 manuscript paper he had already combined Socarnoides stebhingi with Nannonyx 

 thomsoni. 



As this species has already been fully described by various other authors, it is 

 unnecessary to repeat the description here, but I may point out that it can generally 

 be easily recognised by the structure of the third uropods ; these are small, but have 

 the peduncle elevated above, either near the middle or towards the distal end, and 

 the produced portion generally tipped with one or more small setae ; the rami 

 are both small, the outer with a terminal joint and the inner smaller than the 

 outer. The male differs from the female in having the flagellum of the second 

 antenna about two-thirds the length of the body ; the terminal uropoda are the 

 same as in the female, instead of differing, as in many allied species of the Lysianas- 

 sidae. 



Genus Tryphosa, Boeck, 1871. 



Distribution. — Widely distributed in northern and southern seas. 



Tryphosa kergueleni (Miers). 



Lysianassa kergueleni, Miers, Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 4, xvi, p. 74, 

 1875. Tryphosa kergueleni, Stebbing, " Das Tierreich Amphipoda," 

 pp. 69, 720, 1906 ; Walker, Nat. Antarct. Exped., Amphipoda, p. 16, 

 1907. Hoplonyx kergueleni, Walker, Journ. Linn. Soc, xxix, p. 51, 1903. 



A single specimen from the Snares, dredged in 50 fathoms by Captain BoUons. 



