28 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. VII, January, 1953 
that the collections made by the "Albatross” 
with its extensive dredging and that the col- 
lections made by diving have produced only 
two new species, it is likely that the present 
list comprises almost all the species found in 
these waters. 
At least one species of this genus, S. para- 
neomeris Coutiere, manifests a remarkable vari- 
ation, If this condition has been correctly 
interpreted, it casts doubts upon many species 
of this genus that are separated by relatively 
fine distinctions in the proportions of the 
various parts. In fact, the perusal of the de- 
scriptions of Coutiere in particular (as for 
example in his 1909 publication) would make 
one wonder about the validity of some of the 
described species and varieties, even without 
such an example as that of 5. paraneomeris in 
mind. Coutiere, too, was doubtful of the va- 
lidity of some of the species he described and 
suggested that some of them be raised in 
"pure cultures” to determine the amount of 
variation found in a homogenous group. Cer- 
tainly many of the described species have been 
established on criteria so fine that almost no 
variation could exist without destroying the 
validity of the species. 
Coutiere (1909) divided the genus into six 
groups (not subgenera, but groups which are 
without standing under the International 
Rules of Zoological Nomenclature). With 
only the small group of species studied for 
this paper it is impossible to decide how ade- 
quate and helpful these groups are. However, 
it appears that there are so many exceptions 
to the definitions as they were drawn up that 
the groups are of scant value. For example, S. 
albatrossi Coutiere, which was placed by that 
author in the Comatularum Group, violates 
the following parts of his definition of the 
Group: 
"Supraorbital spines insignificant compared 
to the rostrum . . .’’—the supraorbital spines 
and the rostrum are of equal size. 
"... spines of the basicerite almost equal 
. . .” — even in S. albatrossi, where the spines 
approach equality more closely than do the 
spines of most other species of the group, the 
spines are not even subequaL 
"... first segment of the carpus of the sec- 
ond pair of feet very long . . .’’—the first arti- 
cle of the carpus is about 1.2 times as long as 
the sum of the following, when compared to 
the usual 1.0 times as long found in both 5*. 
paraneomeris and S. charon and 1.7 times as 
long as in S. prolificus, all of which belong to 
other groups which are defined as having a 
short carpus. 
"... following feet cylindrical . . .”—1 do 
not know what is meant here, but at least the 
articles of the legs of S. albatrossi are as flat- 
tened as were the corresponding articles of 
other synalpheids examined. 
"... ventral hook of the dactyl obsolete 
. . .’’—the ventral hook of the dactylus is no 
more obsolete in S. albatrossi than is the sup- 
posedly well- developed hook of 5. towsendi 
brevispinis Coutiere of the Paulsoni Group {op. 
cit., p. 35). 
"... telson with an oval median lobe ...” 
—the median lobe of the telson is no more 
oval than any other Hawaiian species of this 
genus. 
A similar critique could be applied, I be- 
lieve, to most of the other characteristics listed 
in the key to the groups given by Coutiere. 
Even Coutiere did not seem to distinguish 
between the groups, let alone the species, for 
a specimen from Hawaii (fragmentary, it is 
true) in the United States National Museum 
which he determined as S. townsendi in the 
Paulsoni Group appears to me to be well 
within the range of variation found in S. para- 
neomeris of the Neomeris Group. In other 
words, the groups that were established to 
show relationships and to be of aid to the 
classification of the genus appear to show 
only dubious relationships and are of almost 
no aid in classification. As a consequence, in 
this paper the groups are not accepted. 
If later workers wish to use these groups, 
the Hawaiian species may be divided as fol- 
lows: 
