Terrestrial Amphipods — • Hurley 
153 
Figures 2e and 5a of this paper are compared, 
I think there is little doubt as to which this 
description applies. Add what I consider the 
operative phase of Sayce’s description of the 
maxillipeds, "outer masticatory plates small, 
each broad proximally, but rapidly narrowing 
to a bluntly pointed apex directed obliquely 
inwards and bearing, submarginally, a single 
transverse row of short stiff setae” and Sayce’s 
figures of the maxilliped, and it is difficult to 
find any significant difference between Has- 
well’s, Sayce’s or Hunt’s specimens. Further- 
more Chilton (1916) also figures the maxilli- 
ped of an Australian specimen of T. sylvaticus 
and says that his specimen "agrees very closely 
with Sayce’s description.” Schellenberg (1934) 
records T, dorrieni from New South Wales, 
Australia. 
Dr. Keith Sheard informs me that no types 
of Haswell’s material exist. "Some of the 
specimens are labelled as types but they were 
added, either by Haswell or by other workers, 
at a much later date.” Sayce’s material seems 
likewise to be absent. A specimen of Haswell’s 
from Elizabeth Bay which Dr. Sheard kindly 
examined for me agrees with T. dorrieni . 
For all of these reasons I consider the max- 
illipeds of T. dorrieni Hunt and T. sylvaticus 
Haswell identical and T. dorrieni Hunt to be 
a synonym of Talitrus sylvaticus Haswell. 
Hunt’s arguments could possibly be advanced 
for giving T. dorrieni subspecific rank. 
Thomson (1892) figures T. sylvaticus from 
Tasmania and notes its differences from Has- 
well’s specimens. Thomson’s specimens agree 
in having the 3rd pleopod vestigial, but his 
description of the 4th peraeopod gill and the 
maxilliped suggest some differences. Unfor- 
tunately, it is difficult to say from the figures 
whether the differences are specific or not— 
the lack of spines on the inner margin of the 
maxilliped outer plate suggests that Thom- 
son’s specimens differ from Hunt’s T. dorrieni 
and, by inference, from Haswell’ s specimens, 
but the difference may perhaps be due to 
faulty drawings. Whatever species Thomson’s 
specimens belong to, they are certainly not 
identical with Talitrus tasmaniae Ruffo (1948), 
as one might have expected. 
The Identity of Talitrus sylvaticus as defined by 
Hunt and Talitrus sylvaticus as defined by 
Stephensen 
The literature after 1925 tends to obscure 
the facts on which Hunt based his new spe- 
cies, T. dorrieni . However, examination of 
Chilton’s material in the light of these papers 
helps clarify the vexing synonymy. All of 
Chilton’s material, with the exception of a 
Norfolk Island specimen, is from Australia. 
There appear to be five distinct species in- 
cluded in the collection under the label " Tali- 
trus sylvaticus .” These are: 
Talitrus kershawi Sayce (1909). 
Talitrus sp. from Central Creek (fragments 
only). 
Talitrus sylvaticus Chevreux. cf. Hunt, 1925. 
Talitrus sylvaticus Haswell (T. dorrieni , 
Hunt). 
Talitrus sylvaticus Stephensen, 1935. 
Talitrus kershawi is easily distinguished by 
the outer plate of the maxilliped, the gills of 
the fourth peraeopod, and the third epimeral 
plate, although in these specimens the last 
is not easy to discern. (See Fig. 4.) 
The Central Creek specimen is quite unlike 
any of the other four species in the third 
epimeral plate, about the only fragment of the 
animal left which is of any specific value. 
The Chevreux species is figured in part by 
Hunt (1925, text-fig. 5) who states that the 
specimen concerned "definitely. . . . does not 
belong to the species in question (T. sylva- 
ticus) , if indeed to the genus Talitrus .” Chev- 
reaux’s specimens were obtained for him from 
Tasmania by Chilton. I assume that the only 
specimens labelled T. sylvaticus from Tasmania 
in Chilton’s collection are from the identical 
locality and collection as Chevreux’s, espe- 
cially since they show identical features. Hunt’s 
diagnosis of them as "not T. sylvaticus ” dis- 
poses of the "puzzling discrepancy” in the 
published reports of the pleopods up to 1925. 
Hunt’s remarks are very much to the point 
