I. '08. 71 



General distribution. — Arabian Sea, in the neighbourhood 

 of the Laccadives and northwards; Bay of Bengal, off Ceylon 

 (Alcock) ; Bay of Biscay, one specimen (Caullei'y). 



Irish distribution. — A single specimen only has been 

 fonnd : — 



Hetga. 



S.R. 363— 10/8 /'06.— 51° 22' N., 12° 0' W. 695-720 fathoms. 

 Trawl. Temperature at 600 fathoms, 7 92° C, salinity 

 35-37°/^^— One, 97 mm. 



Vertical range. — E. Hoskyni has been trawled in 487-890 

 fathoms (Alcock) and in 656 fathoms (Caullery). Judging by 

 its structure, the species is almost certainly pelagic; in all the 

 recorded captures the specimens may have been caught while 

 the net was b.eing hauled to the surface. 



Ephyrina Benedict!, Smith. 

 PI. YII, fig. 7. 



Ephyrina Benedicti, Smith, 1886, PI. xiv, fig. 3; and 



PL XVI, fig. 4. 

 Tropiocaris planipes, Spence Bate, 1888, PI. cxxxvi, 



fig. 1. 



A single small specimen, 24 mm. in length, is referred to 

 this species. It differs from the original description in two 

 particulars, viz., in the length of the rostrum (fig. 7), the apex 

 of w'hich only reaches about to the middle of the cornea of the 

 eye, and in the absence of the dorsal spine on the posterior 

 margin of the third abdominal somite. In these two 

 characters certain allied species are now^ known to show very 

 considerable variation, so that there can be but little doubt 

 that the specimen in question is specifically identical wdth E. 

 Benedicti. The small size of the specimen suggests the pos- 

 sibility that the longer rostrum and the dorsal spine on the 

 abdomen might be acquired in the course of time. 



With the exception of the characters just mentioned, there 

 is the closest possible resemblance between E. Benedicti and 

 E. Hoshyni. In the two Irish specimens the mandibles, 

 maxillae, and maxillipedes are as nearly as possible identical. 



If the small example be correctly assigned to E. Benedicti, 

 the distinctions between that species and E. Hoskyni are re- 

 duced to a minimum, the form of the rostrum being the only 

 differential feature available. Only nine specimens of Ephy- 

 rina have ever been found, and in consequence practically 

 nothing is known of the range of variation in the genus. It 

 is not altogether improbable that further investigation may re- 

 duce E. Floskyni to a mere synonym of E. Benedicti, but 

 there is so far no evidence to show that the differences in the 

 form of the rostrum do not constitute a valid character. 



