1040 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
having two finger-like lobes at the end. The endopodite is a 
broad, short plate, which is divided into three lobes. The 
outer lobe is the outer branch of the first foot (e) ; it bears 
three setae or claws. The outermost of these is far longer 
than any other seta on this foot or the two succeeding; another 
is short, weak, and borne on the posterior face of the lobe. 
The second lobe has three 2-jointed setae on its face and three 
on its edge; the terminal joints of the last named have a comb¬ 
like structure. The outer lobe has on the edge four setae like 
those on the middle lobe but smaller. The maxillary process 
is large. It has four finger-like projections on the end, some 
or all of which are tipped with fine plumose setae; on its face 
is a short plumose seta, possibly sensory, and above this a 
row of four long, two-jointed setae, whose outer joints are 
plumose. The branchial sac (ep) is large, oval in form. 
There is more difference of opinion regarding the morphol¬ 
ogy of the parts of the second foot, as the following table will 
show: 
Author. 
Reference. 
Genus. 
Endopo¬ 
dite. 
Exopodite. 
Maxillary 
process. 
Birge, ’09 — 
PI. LXX, fig. 3. 
Wlassicsia.. 
d 
e+e'+e" 
mx 
Lund, 71. 
p. 156; PI. IX, fig. 6. 
Macrothrix 
d 
e+e'+e" 
mx 
Merrill, ’93... 
p. 328: PI. XV, fig. 2. 
Bunops. 
d 
e+e'+e" 
mx 
Sars, ’00. 
p. 16: PI. II, fig. 7 ... 
Iheringula. 
d 
e 
e'+e"+mx 
Daday,’03.... 
p.70; PI. 5, fig. 16. 
Wlassicsia.. 
d+e 
e'+e" 
mx 
pfl.rs ’04- . 
p. 8; fig. 11. 
Savcia. 
d+e 
e'+e” 
mx 
Lilljeborg,’00 
p. 314; PI. LI. fig. 10...... 
Ophryoxus. 
d+e 
e'+e" 
mx 
p. 343; PI. LIV, fig. 20.... 
Macrothrix 
d+e 
e'+e" 
mx 
U 
P. 357. 
Lathonura. 
doubtful 
p. 364; PI. LVT, fig. 20... 
Strebloce¬ 
rus. 
d 
e+e'+e" 
mx 
Lilljeborg interprets the appendage of Drepamihrix (p. 370, 
PI. LVII, fig. 7) and Acantholeberis (p. 377, PI. LVIII, fig. 
7) in the same way as Streblocerus. The same may be said 
of the appendages of the Chydoridae. 
Prom the two tables it will be seen that the differences of 
opinion, with one exception, relate to the proper point of divi¬ 
sion between exopodite and endopodite. The exception is Sars, 
who, in discussing Iheringula (’00), assigned to the maxillary 
process of the first foot all that has been called endopodite 
and also gave the two inner lobes of the endopodite of the 
