274 
i 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. XI, July, 1957 
that the fundamental characters as outlined 
for the family are likewise of basic value on 
the generic level. Congeners of Teredicola 
typica may be expected to exhibit the follow- 
ing characters: 
1 . A close similarity of the antenna and api- 
cal pieces of the mandible to those of typica. 
2. Both maxillae simple in structure. 
3. Maxilliped present in both sexes; di- 
morphic. 
4. Paragnaths rudimentary or well devel- 
oped. 
5. Legs reduced in size, 1-4 pairs present. 
6. Leg 5 probably absent; if present un- 
likely to be more than rudimentary. 
7. Body shape variable, segmentation of 
metasome distinct or not in female; sexual 
dimorphism probably conspicuous. 
Because of the interest of their occurrence 
in the same host group, mention should be 
made here of the new genus Teredophilus pro- 
posed by Rancurel (1954). In comparing this 
genus with others, Rancurel has followed a 
common misconception that relationships can 
be determined by purely specific characters 
such as size, habitus, segmentation of the 
antennules, and the number of legs. The 
genus is compared only with genera such as 
Teredicola which have been impossible to place 
accurately in families, or in some cases even 
to recognize, because the oral appendages have 
been omitted or only partially elucidated in 
their descriptions. The conclusion that Tere- 
dophilus is most closely related to Ischnurella 
has no real foundation when based upon the 
scanty description given by Pelseneer (1929). 
On the basis of present knowledge, it does 
not seem possible to place Teredophilus sys- 
tematically. It shows certain relationship with 
the ergasilids in the simple but stoutly pre- 
hensile antenna and in the shape and armature 
(reduction of spines) of legs 1-4. But in spite 
of the drawings and description given, I find 
it difficult to interpret satisfactorily the oral 
area and appendages, so that these suggested 
ergasilid characters may be very misleading. 
The copepod is very small (0.70 mm.) and 
undoubtedly the oral area is exceedingly dif- 
ficult to study. Rancurel himself gives the 
impression that his description of this area 
is incomplete, even as regards the number of 
appendages, one (or some) of which he refers 
to in genetal terms as "machoires.” It is 
therefore necessary that the oral area be pre- 
sented again in literature with more certain 
delineation and against a background concept 
of the significance of the anterior appendages 
in both generic diagnosis and classification. 
REFERENCES 
Edmondson, Charles H. 1942. Teredinidae 
of Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Mus., Occas. 
Papers 17(10) :97-150, 13 figs. 
1945. Natural enemies of shipworms 
in Hawaii. Amer. Micros. Soc ., Trans. 64(3): 
220-224, 1 pi. 
Pelseneer, Paul. 1929. Copepodes parasites 
de mollusques. Soc. Roy. Zool. de Belg. Ann. 
(1928) 69: 33-49, 5 figs. 
Rancurel, P. 1954. Un nouveau copepode 
parasite de taret: Teredophilus renicola. Inst. 
Frang. d’Afrique Noire, Bui. ser. A. 16(3): 
848-858, 11 figs. 
Sars, G. O. 1913-1918. An Account of the 
Crustacea of Norway. 6. Copepoda Cyclo- 
poida. 225 pp., pis. 1-118. Bergen Museum, 
Bergen. 
Wilson, Charles B. 1942. Description of a 
new genus and species of copepod parasitic 
in a shipworm. Wash. Acad. Sci., Jour. 
32(2): 60-62, 1 fig. 
— 1944. Parasitic copepods in the United 
States National Museum. U. S. Natl. Mus., 
Proc. 90: 529-582, pis. 20-34. 
Wilson, Charles S. 1953. Minute shears and 
forceps from razor blades for fine dissec- 
tions. Amer. Micros. Soc., Trans. 72(4): 379- 
383, 2 figs. 
Wilson, Mildred S., and PaulL. Illg. 1955. 
The Family Clausiidae (Copepoda, Cyclo- 
poida). Biol. Soc. Wash., Proc. 68: 129-141. 
