
NICHOLLS—COPEPODA FROM SOUTH AUSTRALIA 51 
in the immature form it would appear that the specimen was a female. One of 
the more striking features of this immature specimen is the structure of the second 
antenna, whieh elearly shows the lateral expansion of the third segment so vharac- 
teristic of several species of Hemicyclops. The first antenna. shows only five sez- 
ments instead of the full number of seven, 
Before definitely identifying Saphirella with Hemicyclops it should be noted 
that two other genera have a mandible similarly armed. Embleton (op. cit., p. 
214, 215) quoting Cann, shows that in Hersiliodes there are three accessory parts 
to the mandible in addition to the terminal claw, and Sars (1917, pl. Ixxxii) shows 
a similar strueture for the mandible of Hippomolgus. Tn the former, in addition 
to the elaw and blade, there are ‘‘two long bearded Mexible hooks’? or ‘‘setae,’’ 
whereas in Hemicyeclops and Hippomolgus these two setae are short, no longer 
than the elaw and blade, In the latter genus the maxilliped and its armature are 
greatly reduced in the female though strongly prebensile in the male (et. H, 
dubia (Thompson and Seott) 1903, pl. ni, fig. 24) in conformity with the charac- 
ters of the family, It is clear, therefore, that in Saphirella we have the young 
form of Hemicyclops, 
Concerning Pauracope Brady (1899), Sewell (1924, p. 800) attempts to 
show that it may be synonymous with Saphirella, but I eannot entirely agree 
wilh his interpretation of Brady’s figures. 
We Inow that in one genus (Goideha) the mandible may he armed with a 
single terminal claw, Brady’s fig. 5 (pl. xiii) may truly represent the mandible 
as claimed by him. Wie fie. 6, which he calls the maxilla (maxilhile) is eertamly 
not that appendage but might be either the terminal portion of the maxilla or, 
more likely, the end of the mandible showing the terminal elaw with three acces- 
sory pieces (iu this case two toothed blades and one seta) typical of three out of 
the six known genera. His fie, 7 is unrelatable to any other recognizable mouth 
part, though the terminal portion might represent the maxillnle as suggested by 
Sewell (lec. cit,) The proximal portion bears no relationship to. any of the mouth 
parts known for this family. Ttscems probable to me, therefore, that Paurecope 
floes represent a dislinet genus, and sinee I cannot, relate it to any of the known 
fenora I regard it as representing the immature stace of a seventh member pf 
the Clausiciidae, the adult of which is so far unknown. This view gains game 
support! from 9 comparison of (he published figures of the whole animal in dorsal 
view. Compare T', Scott, 2894, pl. xiii, fig. 67s Wolfenden, 1905, pl, xeix, fig. 12 
T. Scott, 1921, pl. iv, fig. 2; Sewell, 1924, pl. lx, fig 1; and the figure given hive. 
In every case the first free thoracic sexment shows strong lateral posterior pro- 
jeetions, reaching at least half-way to the hinder margin of the following segment 
in yndiea and right to the posterior margin of that segment in every other case. 
Compare these with Pouracone and it will be seen that Brady shows very little, if 
any, posterior extension to this segment. 
““SAPHIEELLA’? TROPICA = HEMICYCLOPS sp. 
Wolfenden, 1905, p- 1,050. 
Oveorrence. CLS.1R. Station 24/39, 24/7/39, 50-0 Vertical net, 32° 48’ 8 
152° 24° B. 
Distribution, Indian Ocean, 
Ninnature specimen, Length 1-06 mm. This copepod has already been dis- 
cussed above; a detailed desertption of the mouth parts would merely be repetitive 
of what has already heen said for Hemieyclaps australis, Only two pairs of legs 
were present, each with one-segmented rami, a third pair was represented by 
spines only, The figure is ineluded here (fis, 22) so that comparison can be made 
with previous descriptions and with the species of Hemicyclops. 
