KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND. 22. N:0 7. 85 



1872 found that the name Metoecus must be rejected, as being preoccupied, he did not 

 substitute it with a new name but accepted Tauria, Dana, as the synonym for Metoecus, 

 misled, I suppose, by the argumentation of Spence Bate and Westwood, p. 519, in the 

 second volume of »The British Sessile-eyed Crustacea'); speaking on Hyperia tauriformis 

 n. sp., they say namely: 



»Dana established the genus Tauria for the reception of those species of Hyperia 

 that have the antero-inferior angle of the carpus of both pairs of gnathopoda (»— first 

 and second pairs of peraeopoda) so far anteriorly produced as to extend to the extremity 

 of the propodos (= metacarpus) thus forming a tolerably perfect but compound chelate 

 organ. But so gradual is the development of this process from one species to another? 

 that we can see no clearly defined limit where one genus may commence and the other 

 end. We have chosen a specific name for our new species, which indicates its affinity 

 with Dana's proposed genus». 



Boeck maintained the specific name used by Kroeyer and regarded Tauria medic- 

 sarum as the right name. 



In 1885 *) I proved, however, that Tauria, Dana, as mentioned above, p. 80, was 

 utterly misunderstood by Spence Bate and Westwood and by Boeck, and that it was 

 widely separated from Metoecus. Then I did not propose a new generic name but looked 

 upon Metoecus as belonging to Hyperia. 



As it seems to me not only inconvenient but contrary to reason to maintain a name, 

 it may be generic or specific, which depends only on an erroneous determination, and 

 such strictly being the case here with regard to Tauria medusarum, I have rejected, 

 for the species in question, the generic name Tauria and the specific name medusarum, 

 substituting the former with Hyperoche 2 ) and naming the old typical species of H. Kroeyer: 

 Hyperoche Kroeyeri 1 ), in honour of the eminent Danish Carcinologist. 



Among the several species established by H. Milne Edwards and Dana in the 

 genera Hyperia and Lestrigonus none belongs to the genus Hyperoche. 



The first new addition to this genus we find in Hyperia Martinezii, briefly described 

 by Fritz Muller in 1864. 3 ) 



The next addition was made in 1868 by Spence Bate and Westwood in the work 

 quoted above. The description of Hyperia tauriformis, however, is so meagre, and the 

 drawing so carelessly sketched, that it is quite impossible to judge if it is identical with 

 any one of the later named species, or if it is distinct. If the type specimens are pre- 

 served, and according to a passage in a treatise 4 ) by the Rev. A. Merle Norman it is 

 probable that such may be the case, we do hope that the species may be reexamined 

 and duly placed in the system. In the same treatise Norman speaks about Hyperia, tauri- 

 formis as a synonym of Metoecus medusarum, Kroeyer, but owing to the different shape 



') »On some forgotten genera among the Amphipodous Crustacea". Bin. t. K. Sv. Vet Ak. Hand]. Bd. 

 10. N:o 14, p. 16. 



2 ) "Systematical list of the Amphipoda Hyperiidea». Bill. t. K. Sv. Vet. Ak. Hand!. Bd. 11. N:o 

 16, p. 17. 



3 ) Fur Darwin. Leipzic, 1864, p. 52. 



4 ) "Shetland Final Dredging Report. Part. TI. On the Crustacea" etc. Report of the 38:th meeting of 

 the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held at Norwich, 1868. London, 1869, p. 336. 



