458 PROFESSOR CHARLES CHILTON ON THE 
1882-83. For some time after this no further contribution of any importance was made 
specially dealing with Antarctic Amphipoda, though those of some of the sub-Antarctic 
regions were gradually becoming better known. The next contribution to our know- 
ledge of the Antarctic forms was made by the Southern Cross Expedition, which visited 
South Victoria Land in 1898-1900; the Amphipoda collected by this expedition were 
described by Mr A. O. WaLxer in 1903. 
Meanwhile, the Antarctic Expeditions of Britain, Germany, Sweden, and France had 
been wintering in the Antarctic and making numerous collections. The Amphipoda of 
the French Antarctic Expedition were described by Monsieur EpovarD CHEVREUX in 1906, 
and those of the British by Mr A. O. Watker in 1907. The reports on the German 
and Swedish Expeditions have not yet been published. 
In 1907 a small scientific party from New Zealand visited the sub-Antarctic 
Islands lying to the south of that land, and the Crustacea collected were described by 
myself in 1909 in The Sub-Antarectic Islands of New Zealand, published by the 
Philosophical Institute of Canterbury. 
A preliminary report on the Amphipoda of the recent French Expedition in the 
Pourquot Pas? was published by M. Cuevrevx in 1911.* 
From the lists given below it will be seen that the Scotia collection contained 
fifty-six species from Antarctic or sub-Antarctic seas and six Atlantic species. The great 
majority of these were already known, and I have made only nine new species and no 
new genus. This appears to show that the Amphipoda of the southern seas are 
becoming fairly well known so far as the mere identification of species is concerned, 
though there is much to be done in tracing out more completely the distribution of the 
species and any local varieties that they may present. 
On the other hand, it may be noted from his preliminary report on the Amphipoda 
of the Pourquoi Pas? Expedition that M. Cazvreux has established six new genera 
and numerous new species. 
It will be seen that 1 have reduced a number of species to the rank of synonyms. 
I have done this only where there appeared to be good grounds for so doing, and in all 
cases where there is likelihood of a difference of opinion | have endeavoured to give my 
reasons in full. In thus reducing the number of described species, I have only 
continued a necessary work that has been commenced in recent years by other writers. 
In the earlier days of the study of the Amphipoda, when workers were few and 
collections scanty, it frequently happened that a collection from a new locality contained 
many new species. In numerous instances these were described on very meagre 
material, often from a single specimen; and even when there was an abundant supply 
of specimens time did not allow of the dissection of more than one or two, hence there 
* M. CHEVREUX’s second paper (Bull. Muséum Nat. Hist., 1912, No. 4), containing the diagnoses of the new species 
collected by this expedition, reached me when the final proofs of my paper had been corrected, and therefore too late 
for the results to be noticed here, though it is probable that one or two of the new species described below are 
identical with those established by M. CuEvrEvx. 
