SCHIZOPODA. 
5 
The synonymy given here, whereby five supposed distinct species of Euphausia 
are merged into E. superba, Dana, is the result of a careful examination of the 
abundant and valuable ‘ Discovery ’ material, aided by a comparison with the 
£ Challenger ’ and ‘ Southern Cross ’ types (for which I am greatly indebted to 
Mr. E. W. L. Holt), and the small collection from the zoological museum of University 
College, Dundee. 
Reasons for these views were briefly stated in the preliminary notice of this 
collection, and the opinions as to the synonymy of this species, as far as they concern 
Euphausia antarctica and E. murrayi , have recently been confirmed and adopted by 
Coutiere (1906) as a result of his examination of the collection of the French 
Antarctic Expedition. A fuller justification for these opinions is given below, together 
with some notes on the growth changes, and sexual differences. 
Female. —This sex has been very well described under the names E. murrayi by 
Gr. 0. Sars (1885), and E. australis by Hodgson (1902). 
The ‘ Discovery ’ specimens present some slight differences from Sars’ description, 
but the examination of his type specimens proves them to be due to errors on Sars’ 
part. They may be noted under their separate heads as follows :— 
(1) Preanal spine. —Sars states that this spine is wanting in E. murrayi, but the 
type specimen shows it to be distinct, well-developed and simple, but not visible from 
the side from which Sars took his drawing. All the ‘ Discovery ’ specimens show a 
well-developed simple preanal spine. 
(2) Small blunt spine on the outer distal corner of the first joint of the antennular 
peduncle. —This spine is not shown in Sars’ figures nor mentioned in his description. 
It is, however, clearly visible in the type in lateral view, but in dorsal view is quite 
obscured by the numerous setie arming the basal joint of the peduncle, which are well 
preserved and very opaque. The ‘ Discovery ’ material conforms to the type in 
possessing this spine well-developed. 
(3) Terminal spine on the outer margin of the antennal scale. —Sars mentions this 
spine in his description as very small, but does not figure it. It is, in fact, not visible 
in his type from the dorsal aspect, owing to its being slightly ventrally deflexed, and 
the specimen is so well preserved and rigid, that the pressure necessary to place it 
dorsal surface uppermost for drawing is not sufficient to straighten out the spine and 
render it visible in dorsal view. 
(4) Shape of the epimeral plate of the penultimate segment of the pleon. —Sars both 
describes and figures the penultimate epimeral plate as acute and triangular, but in the 
type and the ‘ Discovery ’ material, whereas these plates have substantially the same 
shape as depicted by Sars, the apex in all is bluntly rounded instead of acutely pointed. 
(5) Spinules on the dorsal surface of the telson. Sars figures and describes three 
pairs in E. murrayi, but, as a matter of fact, the number is subject to variation, an 
additional pair anterior to the three shown by Sars being frequently noticed. In all 
E 
VOL. IV. 
