PYCNOGONIDA CALM AN. 
51 
prominence. The double dorsal tubercles of the lateral processes and first coxae are 
also beset with short spines. The proboscis is about as long as the trunk, conical in 
the smaller specimens, but becoming slightly pyriform in the larger, decurved, with a 
slight constriction at one-third its length from the base. The transverse body-ridges 
have acute spine-like median processes as tall as the ocular tubercle. The fourth 
segment of the palp is not more than one-third longer than the second. The ovigers 
are represented only by minute buds. 
In their spiny armature, these specimens resemble those described by Bouvier 
(1906, p. 20) as A. curculio, but afterwards (1913, p. 127) regarded by him as the 
young of A. gibbosa. They differ, however, in the form of the proboscis, which, in our 
specimens, is much stouter, and in the larger specimens shows a tendency towards a 
pyriform shape; further, in our largest specimens the second segment of the palp is 
three-quarters as long as the fourth, while in specimens of A. gibbosa, only a little larger, 
the proportion, in Prof. Bouvier’s figure, is less than one-half. 
Ammothea gibbosa (Mubins). 
Colossendeis gibbosa, Mobius, 1902, p. 192, PI. xxx, figs. 1-5. 
Ammothea curculio, Bouvier, 1906, p. 20 ; id., 1907, p. 40, figs. 19-22. 
Leionymphon gibbosum, Hodgson, 1907, p. 40. 
Leionymphon grande, Hodgson, 1907, p. 41, PI. vi. fig. 1 (nee Ammothea grandis, Pfeffer, 1889, 
P . 43). 
Ammothea gibbosa, Bouvier, 1913, p. 127, figs. 78—82. 
Occurrence. —Station 220, off Cape Adare, 45-50 fathoms ; 3 immature. 
Remarks. —Bouvier, while referring some of his specimens to A. grandis, Pfeffer, , • 
and others to A. gibbosa (Mobius), expresses a doubt as to the separation of these two 
species. lie also points out that the “ Discovery ” specimen figured by Hodgson as 
A. grandis shows some of the characters that he regards as distinctive of A. gibbosa. 
The specimens obtained by the “ Terra Nova,” which are all immature, undoubtedly 
belong to the same species as the “ Discovery ” specimens. Like these, they differ 
much from some South Georgia specimens in the Museum collection, which I take to 
represent the A. grandis of Pfeffer and to be indistinguishable from the earlier 
A. carolinensis of Leach (Caiman, 1915a, p. 314). The latter have the setules on the 
body and limbs shorter, more closely set, and much less distinctly separated in 
longitudinal bands, especially on the tibiae, than have the “ Discovery ” and “Terra 
Nova ” specimens; further, the abdomen is much more horizontal, and the distal ridge 
on the lateral processes is less distinctly bilobecl. The median dorsal processes of the 
body-ridges are not, however, noticeably higher in the one case than in the other, and 
in none of the specimens are they so much expanded at the tip as in Bouvier’s figure 
of the adult A. gibbosa. The somewhat greater length of the propodus in the South 
Georgia specimens also agrees with Bouvier’s conception of A. grandis. On the other 
hand, Hodgson, after examining the type-specimens of Mobius and of Pfeffer, states 
that the specific identity of the “ Discovery ” specimens with the latter was established 
h 2 
