418 A HISTORY OF KECENT CEUSTACEA 



Hemicurthrus abdominalis (Kroyer), 1840, on Hippolyte 

 Oaimardii, Milne-Edwards. Kroyer states that he also 

 found it on Hippolyte Sowerbei and another nearly related 

 species. J. Sp. Schneider assigns it also to Kroyer's Hip- 

 polyte turgida and pusiola, and to Pa^idalus Montagui, Leach. 

 Bate and Westwood speak of it as a parasite both of the 

 Fandalus and of a species of Hippolyte. The full-grown 

 female is of remarkable appearance, from her want of 

 symmetry, her great marsupial plates enclosing a vast 

 number of eggs, and the condition of her limbs, which form 

 on one side a little crowded row, while on the other all 

 have disappeared except the first. Hippolyte Sowerbei or 

 rather Sowerboei, Leach, is a synonym of S'pirontocaris 

 spinus (Sowerby), and stands therefore in the genus to 

 which the species pusiola and Gaimardii have also been 

 recently transferred (see pages 235, 236). 



Phyllodurus, Stimpson, 1857, is thus described by 

 Stimpson, in Latin which if not pedantically classical, 

 has at least the merit of being very easy for English 

 readers to follow : — ' Feminse pedes thoracis sat validi, toti 

 ancorales, unguiculati ; appendicibus branchiales carentes. 

 Appendices abdominis branchiales ; superiores laterales, 

 laminis duabus Eequis magnis elongatis ; inferiores papilli- 

 formes. Abdominis segmentus primus setis dorsalibus 

 unguiculatis instructns.' 



Phyllodurus abdominalis, Stimpson, 1857, from between 

 the abdominal feet of the common Upogebia, Puget Sound. 

 On the position of this species the recent authorities do 

 not appear to express any opinion. The other Epicarids of 

 Upogebia, lone and Pseudione, are referred to the branchial 

 cavity. 



At the conclusion of this long catalogue it may be 

 allowable to express a hope that its utility to the student 

 will be in some measure proportionate to the time and 

 trouble expended on producing it. It would have been 

 easy to sacrifice the useful to the ornamental, and instead 

 of showing the extent of the subject, to dwell only 

 on the singularities, indulging in a disquisition on the 

 extremely eccentric and abnormal forms included in this 



