Phoxocephalidae — Barnard 
149 
Proharpinia stephenseni (Schellenberg), 
new combinarion 
Heterophoxus stephenseni Schellenberg, 1931: 73. 
The type species of Proharpinia is P. anti- 
poda Schellenberg, (1931: 80). Specimens of 
both P. antipoda and H. stephenseni were com- 
pared and found to be congeneric. The genus 
Proharpinia differs from the genus Hetero- 
phoxus only by: (1) the lack of an ensiform 
process on antenna 2; (2) the presence of a 
cusp on the lower anterior corner of the head. 
Proharpinia stephenseni may be separated from 
P. antipoda by: (1) the lack of teeth on article 
2 of peraeopod 5; (2) a shorter tooth on the 
third pleonal epimera. 
Proharpinia hurley i, new species 
Harpinia ohtusifrons , Chilton, 1909: 619 (in 
part) (not Stebbing, 1888); Stephensen, 
1927: 306 (not Stebbing, 1888). 
Heterophoxus stephenseni , Hurley, 1954: 589 
(not Schellenberg, 1931). 
Some of Schellenberg’s original material of 
H. stephenseni from South America (see pre- 
vious species) and Hurley’s specimens from 
New Zealand were compared and both were 
found to belong to the genus Proharpinia. 
However, the New Zealand specimens are a 
distinct species and differ from the P. stephen- 
seni of South America by: (1) the presence of 
minute serrations on the posterior edge of 
peraeopod 5, article 2; (2) the longer tooth 
on the third pleonal epimera; (3) the stouter, 
longer spines on the telsonic apices; (4) the 
longer rostrum, smaller eyes of the female, 
and the smaller process on the lower anterior 
corner of the head; (5) the relatively longer 
sixth articles and more oblique palms of the 
gnathopods. 
Chilton’s specimens reported in 1909 (de- 
posited at Canterbury University College) 
were examined and some were found to be 
P. hurleyi while the rest could not be identi- 
fied. The reference of Stephensen (1927) was 
originally included as a part of the synonymy 
of Heterophoxus stephenseni by Schellenberg 
(1931) but it is clear from Stephensen’s fig- 
ures that the material belongs with P. hurleyi. 
A ZOOGEOGRAPHIC NEED FOR THE 
PROVISIONAL USE OF THE NAME 
Harpiniopsis 
The type species, Harpiniopsis similis.oi this 
monotypic North Atlantic genus, described 
by Stephensen (1925) was submerged in the 
genus Harpinia by Gurjanova (1951). 
The genus Harpiniopsis differs from Har- 
pinia Boeck mainly by the very elongated 
male second antennae, a criterion generally 
true of all phoxocephalids, except for the 
specialized Harpinias. Although the writer 
deplores the use of secondary sexual criteria 
on which to base genera, he favors the reten- 
tion of the name Harpiniopsis to designate a 
special group of harpiniids which may have 
important zoogeographic meaning. 
The presence of only one species of Har- 
piniopsis in the rather well-explored northeast- 
ern Atlantic, compared with at least five un- 
described species discovered by the writer in 
the eastern Pacific Ocean, is one example of 
the sparse representation of certain phoxo- 
cephalid genera in European Atlantic faunas. 
Another example of this is the presence of 
only one species of Paraphoxus in the north- 
eastern Atlantic compared with several dozen 
species in the Pacific Ocean. On the other 
hand, the specialized genus Harpinia , which 
may have a Harpiniopsis -like ancestor, has 
many species in the European Atlantic but 
none in the tropical and temperate Pacific. 
These facts lead to the suggestion that the 
Pacific Ocean, which is abundantly supplied 
with basic types of phoxocephalids such as 
Paraphoxus and Harpiniopsis , was the evolu- 
tionary center for the group. The only species 
of Paraphoxus in the northeastern Atlantic is 
also present in the northern Pacific, suggest- 
ing that it was the only one which successfully 
migrated to or survived in that part of the 
Atlantic. Only one species of Harpiniopsis 
survived in the north Atlantic, while its more 
specialized relative, Harpinia , probably 
