“ TERRA NOV A ’’ EXPEDITION. 
S2 
Sub-family LEUCIFERINAE. 
0. Leueifer bate}. Borr., 1915. 
Lucifer reynaudii , Hate, “Challenger” Macrura, p. 466, pi. LXXXIV (188S); Ortmann, 
Ergehn. Plankton-Exped., 11, G, b, p. 40 (1893). 
Lucifer batci , Borradaile, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (8), XVI, j>. 228 (1915). 
I have already (lor. rit.) given reasons for holding this species to he distinct from 
/.. (tcisfni. Dana. 1852, with which it has been identified bv Kemp (Trans. Linn. Soc. 
Loud. (2), Zook. X\ 1. i. p. 58. 1918). Kemp, however, has recently (Mem. Lnd. Mus. 
\ . p. 823) maintained his views, on the ground that the differences which 1 believed to 
exist between the two species were discovered only by means of the figures given by 
I Ena and Bate. It is, of course, now impossible to refer to Dana’s specimens, and in 
the ease of his species one is compelled to form a judgment upon the evidence given by 
his description and very clear figures, but Mr. Kemp appears to have overlooked mv 
express statement that 1 had had specimens of Bate's /,. rei/rumdii in mv hands. Both 
the “Terra Nova" examples and those of Bate, now in the British Museum, agree 
closely with Bate's figures and description, and differ from those of Dana in the points 
I have specified. In one point, indeed, Bate is more exact than my kev (Joe. cit., 
p. 230). In the male, the length of the sixth abdominal segment is as 1 have stated. 
In the female, it is a little longer than the uropod. This is shown by Bate. He also 
shows the characteristic, difference in the shape of the end of the exopodite of the 
uropod in the two sexes. In the female, the spine on the outer side is placed a little 
before the end : in the male it arises from the outer angle of the subtruncate end. As 
some of mv specimens are nearly as long as Dana's (f\.. as against of an inch), it is 
not likelv that the verv marked departures from his description which thev show are 
due to their being in a different stage of growth. In these circumstances it seems 
inadvisable to refer them to Dana's species, and 1 have therefore called them />. batei. 
Dana's /,. rci/naiuli is. as Kemp rightly points out, a different species from that to 
which Bate gave the same name. Kemp now identifies it with “ L. typus au-ct.." therein 
reversing a previous decision of his own (Linn. Trans. Inc. c/f.). But in truth there is 
no “ L. typns auef.." at least in the sense of a single species, recognizably the same in 
the works of a number of authors. 1 have already (lor. c/t.) pointed out the lack of 
agreement between the forms known as “ L. typus by various writers, and. believing 
that the latter have probably in most cases given a correct account of the specimens 
before them, have proposed to treat as species the various forms which the descriptions 
seem to reveal. Such a procedure, if it run the risk of temporarily burdening science 
with the necessity of observing distinctions which have little significance, has on the 
other hand the advantage of leading more speedily to the analysis of the problem, and 
so to its solution. Kemp has cited in particular Bate and Ortmann as sponsors for the 
L. typus , which he refers to L. reynaudi. Dana. In view of the new evidence he adduces, 
it is very likely that he is right in regarding Bate's species as identical with the true 
