KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND. 22. NIO 7. 23 



The great discrepancies between the genus Paraphronima and the true Phronimce 

 made it indispensable to remove it from the family Phronimidce and to establish for it a 

 family of its own. Claus 1 ), the founder of the genus, says himself, that Paraphronima 

 differs in important characteristics from the other members of the family Phronimidce, 

 and that it perhaps ought to be placed in the family Hyperiidce. It is however impossible 

 to introduce it in this latter family, owing to the form of the antennae and the want of a 

 mandibular palp. 



In an earlier paper I ventured the supposition that Paraphronima might prove to 

 be identical with the genus Daira of H. Milne Edwards and i hoped to obtaine corro- 

 boration for this supposition lately when Professor Alphonse Milne Edwards most 

 generously transmitted to me the precious collection of Hyperids from the »Musee d'Histoire 

 Naturelle». But unfortunately the type of the genus Daira, as well as the types of some 

 other critical genera and species founded by his illustrous father, had been destroyed by 

 accident. After further studies into the matter I fully admit that Stebbing 1. c. is quite 

 right in his criticism of my above named supposition, and that Paraphronima and Daira 

 must be looked upon as two different genera. Nevertheless I think that the both genera 

 are very closely related. Thus retaining Daira as a genus of its own, only correcting 

 the name to Eudaira as Daira was preoccupied, I place it here in the family Para- 

 phronimidae. It is possible that also the genus Cyllias (see p. 20) ought to be placed 

 in this family. 



The family Paraphronimidse has probably its centre of distribution in the tropical 

 seas, some of its representants occur in the temperate regions, but none is hitherto recor- 

 ded from the Arctic nor from the Antarctic regions. 



The family thus contains two genera viz. Paraphronima and Eudaira. 



A. The carpus of the second pair of pera?opoda is narrow, not produced into a 



process 1. Paraphronima. 



B. The carpus of the second pair of perasopoda is broad, produced into a process, 



forming with the metacarpus a chela _._ 2. Eudaira. 



Genus 1. PARAPHRONIMA, CLAUS, 1879. 



Diagn. Corpus gracile, leviter compressum, epimeris obsoletis. Pedes percei primi paris carpum dila- 

 tatum sed non productum gerentes. Pedes secundi paris metacarpum angustum, in apice 

 productum, gerentes. 



The body is slender, a little compressed, the epimerals are obsolete. The first pair of 

 peratopoda have a broad but not produced carpus. The second pair have a narrow carpus, 

 and the metacarpus produced at the apex. 



1 ) »Der Organismus der Phronimiden». Arb. Zool. Inst, der Universitat Wien. Vol. 2, p. 66 (8). 



