Terrestrial Amphipods — Hurley 
151 
1 short spine at ramus tip. Telson: Longer 
than broad, end and side margins spined, 
slightly emarginate. 
hypotypes. Slides 31, male; 32, female 
(specimen of 14 mm. length); from Hurley- 
ville. 
localities. Hurleyville, Taranaki, coll. 
28/1/49, D.E.H.; from sawdust under wood- 
heap near hedge of Aeliagnus japonica , later 
found abundant under hedge also. Karori, 
Wellington, under rotting grass, coll. B.M. 
Bary, 6/4/48. Waipuna Valley, Te Kauwhata, 
coll. A. J. Healy, 3/5/48. "N. W. of Taupiri," 
coll. A. J. Healy, 5/5/48. Ruby Bay, Nelson, 
leaf-litter, coll. H. Tyndal-Biscoe, 1953. 
DISTRIBUTION. New Zealand; Australia; 
Scilly Isles; Ireland. 
remarks. These specimens undoubtedly 
belong to the same species as those described 
by Hunt (1925) from Tresco Abbey Gardens 
in the Scilly Isles. Since Major Dorrien-Smith, 
who collected the specimens in the Gardens, 
seems also to have been responsible for the 
introduction of many New Zealand plants to 
the Island (cf. Booknotes in Countryside , sum- 
mer, 1951: 92), it seems not improbable that 
the animals were introduced from New Zea- 
land with the plants. Major Dorrien-Smith 
has also collected two species of New Zealand 
stick insects from the same gardens (Uvarov, 
1950). 
The number of localities from which the 
species has been taken in New Zealand and 
their distances apart indicate that the species 
is endemic. Some were undoubtedly near 
human habitation in conditions similar to 
those under which the introduced wood louse, 
Porcellio scaber , is found, but the Waipuna 
Valley specimens come from second-growth 
fern and bracken in eroded back country well 
away from any habitation. 
The only differences from Hunt’s spec- 
imens are in the wider variation of antennal 
segment numbers which is not significant. 
Australian specimens (Fig. 2d) differ slightly 
in lacking plumose setae along the pleopod 
peduncle. The species is easily recognised by 
its very distinctive and rather bare maxilliped, 
and the equally distinctive cleft-tip gill of the 
fourth peraeopod. This gill is large and con- 
spicuous. 
Two quite different species have been con- 
fused under the name Talitrus sylvaticus Has- 
well. This is not difficult to prove, but it is 
not simple to assign correctly the specimens 
recorded by various authors and, of more 
importance, to determine the correct applica- 
tion of the name sylvaticus as proposed origin- 
ally by Haswell. Because of the tangled and 
circumstantial nature of much of the evidence 
involved, a lengthy discussion seems jus- 
tified. 
In my opinion Talitrus sylvaticus as defined 
by Hunt is not specifically distinct from Tali- 
trus dorrieni as defined by the same author, 
both being identical with Talitrus sylvaticus 
Haswell. Specimens of Talitrus described and 
figured by Stephensen (1935) and Shoemaker 
(1936) as Talitrus sylvaticus belong to an 
entirely different heretofore unrecognised 
species. 
The Identity of Talitrus sylvaticus Haswell and 
Talitrus dorrieni Hunt 
In 1880 Haswell described Talitrus sylvaticus, 
a species of amphipod "abundant on moist 
ground in wood and scrub of New South 
Wales." Sayce (1909) amplified Haswell’s de- 
scription. Hunt (1925) described Talitrus 
dorrieni , a terrestrial amphipod from the 
Scilly Isles which he supposed had been in- 
troduced from the tropics. He separated it 
from Talitrus sylvaticus on several counts, no- 
tably the shape of the 1st and 2nd pleopods. 
Hunt described T. dorrieni as having "1st and 
2nd pleopods, rami distinctly segmented, in- 
ner ramus the longer, outer border of the 
peduncle clothed with long feathered setae" 
and T. sylvaticus "1st and 2nd pleopods, rami 
not distinctly segmented, outer ramus the 
