
NIcHOLLS—COPEPODA FROM SOUTH AUSTRALIA 45 
Wilson (1932a, pl. C) figures a mandible, with palp, for Homieyclops amert- 
rows, though be does uot mention such an appendage in the text (p, 45); here he 
deserihes the ‘'fivst maxilla’ from which it is apparent that he is refercing to the 
strveture labelled “mandible”? in the plate. For H. thysanotus, Wilson (1985) 
deseribes a mandible (py, 764) and fizures its palp (fig. 44), without reference to 
the maxillule, Por FH, callianassac, deseribed in the same paper, no refercnce is 
made to these mouth parts, This to be assumed, however, that Wilson interprets 
as mandible and palp what Sars regarded as maxillule and palp. 
Light and Hartman (1937) have figured the ‘‘mandible”’ of H. pugageltensis 
with the ‘'palp removed’! (p. 177, fiz, 17) and in the text (p. 181) they deseribe 
the *palp” but make no mention of a maxillule; this is in conformity with (heir 
statemont (p, 180) that ““Uhe genus Hemicyclops is characterized by the presence 
of a well-develuped mandibular palp,”’ and yet, in their description (p. 176) of 
Clansidiuvm wenconverense (addon, 1912) both mandible and maxillule are re- 
goenized and deseribed, Ptom their deseriptions it is clear that these appendages 
have a structure similar to those cf! other members of the family and are carveetly 
interpreted as mandible and maxillule. 
LeiehSharpe (1989) in bis re-deseription of ITersiliades pelsenceri Cann re- 
gards the mandible and maxiliule as separate appendaves and deserihes the maxil- 
lule as biramous, which is in conformity with the view already expressed by Gur- 
ney and upheld here. 
Thus it may be asserted that the Clansidndae depart from Sars’ definition of 
the Poecilostoma in that a distinct mandible is present, But Gurney (Toe, nit.) 
goes further, and states that in other Poeeilostomous cyelopoids, even in the 
Lichomolgidac, the mandible and its “palp'’ are separable and can be recognized 
as distinet appendages. Tis figure of Thersifina gusterasted (Gurney, 1913, pl, 
xi, fig, () shows an arrangement of mouth parts similar to that given below for 
Hem cyclone. 
This view 1s supported by the figure of the oral region of Paranthessins pro- 
pinquus sp. nov, given below (fi ig. 24), in which although the mandible and 
masillile could net elearhy be traced back to their pomts of attachment, there did 
uokappear to be any obvious insertion of the maxillule on the mandible as a ‘ ‘palp’’. 
Famiry CLAUSIDILDAE Embleton- 
Embleton, 1901, 
Originally named the Hersiliidae Canu (1888) it was first shown by Himbleton 
(1901) that dfersitia (Phil. 1839) had been twiee preocenpied. Kossmann (1874) 
lad deseribed a spomes of Wersilia under the name Clansidiyum and Embleton 
(therefore substituted Kossmann’s namie for Philyppi’s and estabhshed the family 
under Kossmann’s name. 
There would not appear to be any justification for the mtroduetion of a new 
name for Hersiia by Strand (1914), who proposed to replace it hy Pseudohersilia, 
which name therefore becomes a synonyin of Claustdivm, Sars (1917, p. 145) has 
shown that Platycheiron T. and A. Scott (1892) is a synonym of Hemicyelaps. As 
will be shawn helow the genus Saphiretla T. Seott (1894) representing, as already 
pointed out by several authors, the immature stave of a Clansidiid, is & synonym 
of Henneyelops, Goidelia Erbleton (1901) was placed in this family, but it is 
with ennsiderable doubt that I have ineluded it, differing as it dues in several im- 
portant features, partienlarly the prehensile second antenna. 
In view of the difference of opinion rerarding the interpretation of the month 
parts, and with the inelusion of Goddelia, it will be necessary here to give a new 
diagnosis of the family, 
