SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Emphasis upon publication as a means of “diffusing knowledge” was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This theme of basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series:

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology

Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany

Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

Smithsonian Folklife Studies

Smithsonian Studies in Air and Space

Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology

In these series, the Institution publishes small papers and full-scale monographs that report the research and collections of its various museums and bureaux or of professional colleagues in the world of science and scholarship. The publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout the world.

Papers or monographs submitted for series publication are received by the Smithsonian Institution Press, subject to its own review for format and style, only through departments of the various Smithsonian museums or bureaux, where the manuscripts are given substantive review. Press requirements for manuscript and art preparation are outlined on the inside back cover.

Robert McC. Adams

Secretary

Smithsonian Institution

SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY • NUMBER 499

Lysianassoid Amphipoda (Crustacea) from Deep-Sea Thermal Vents

J.L. Barnard and Camilla Ingram

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS

Washington, D.C.

1990

ABSTRACT

Barnard, J.L., and Camilla Ingram. Lysianassoid Amphipoda (Crustacea) from Deep-Sea Thermal Vents. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 499, 80 pages, 43 figures, 1990.—Lysianassoid Amphipoda found in the biotic communities surrounding deep-sea thermal vents are described. Most of the material comes from communities dominated by vestimentiferans, clams, and crabs near vents on the Galapagos Rift (0°) and similar vents at 13°N and 21°N in the eastern Pacific Ocean. These samples are supplemented by others collected from seamounts and trenches throughout the Pacific Ocean.

Species occur in the well-known genera Euonyx, Hirondellea, Abyssorchomene, and Paralicella and in the newly described genera Apotectonia, Diatectonia, Tectovalopsis, Transtectonia, and Ventiella. Genera with the “tecto” root in their name belong to a group with affinities to Valettiopsis, a genus heretofore considered to be bathypelagic.

The dominant amphipod is Ventiella sulfuris, new species, which comprises more than 98 percent of the 100,000 specimens examined. This genus is a derivative of the widespread deep-sea Schisturella.

Important new observations on taxonomy in the Lysianassoidea are offered just at the time the family of 150+ genera is being revised and divided into several families and superfamilies. The principal problem characters involve toothed incisors and armament patterns of maxillae.

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Year. SERIES COVER DESIGN: The coral Montastrea cavernosa (Linnaeus).

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Barnard, J.L. (Jerry Laurens), 1928–

Lysianassoid amphipoda (Crustacea) from deepsea thermal vents / J.L. Barnard and Camilla Ingram

p. cm. — (Smithsonian contributions to zoology ; no. 499)

Includes bibliographic references.

1. Lysianassidae–Pacific Ocean. 2. Deep-sea ecology–Pacific Ocean. I. Ingram, Camilla. II. Title. III. Series.

QL1.S54 no. 499

[QL444.M315]

591 s–dc20

90-9991

[595.3′71]

CIP

Contents

Introduction

Methods and Presentation

Materials

Master Legend

Acknowledgments

Euonyx Norman

Key to the Species of Euonyx

Euonyx mytilus, new species

Hirondellea Chevreux

Key to the Species of Hirondellea

Hirondellea gigas (Birstein and Vinogradov)

Hirondellea glutonis, new species

Hirondellea guyoti, new species

Hirondellea brevicaudata Chevreux

Orchomene Boeck

Orchomene (Abyssorchomene) distinctus Birstein and Vinogradov, new combination

Orchomene (Abyssorchomene) abyssorum Stebbing, new combination

Schisturella Norman

Key to the Species of Schisturella and Ventiella, new genus

Ventiella, new genus

Ventiella sulfuris, new species

Selected Sample Summary

Paralicella Chevreux

Key to the Species of Paralicella

Paralicella vaporalis, new species

Discussion of the Valettiopsis Group

Keys to Certain Deep-Sea Genera of Lysianassoidea

Valettiopsis Holmes

Apotectonia, new genus

Apotectonia heterostegos, new species

Diatectonia, new genus

Diatectonia typhodes, new species

Tectovalopsis, new genus

Keys to the Species of Diatectonia and Tectovalopsis, new genera

Tectovalopsis wegeneri, new species

Tectovalopsis regelatus, new species

Tectovalopsis nebulosus, new species

Tectovalopsis diabolus, new species

Tectovalopsis fusilus, new species

Transtectonia, new genus

Transtectonia torrentis, new species

Literature Cited

Requirements for Smithsonian Series Publication

Lysianassoid Amphipoda (Crustacea) from Deep-Sea Thermal Vents

J.L. Barnard and Camilla Ingram

____________

J.L. Barnard, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560. Camilla Ingram, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California 92093.

Introduction

This is the first report on the taxonomy of amphipods associated with deep-sea thermal vents. Amphipods are poorly diverse as species but very abundant as individuals, especially so on the bodies of the sedentary biota; amphipods are 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more abundant on sedentary organisms than on the inorganic rubble of the vent communities.

Amphipods in the superfamily Lysianassoidea constitute more than 99 percent of the amphipod individuals collected in vent communities. The other one percent is dominantly of the family Pardaliscidae. Over 98 percent of the amphipods comprise the single species Ventiella sulfuris, a new genus and new species that is considered to be an advancement of the diverse and widespread deep-sea Schisturella.

A remarkable cluster of new genera and species in the Valettiopsis group of lysianassoids comprises a significant share of the diversity in vent areas, but some of the new taxa we describe originate from seamounts outside of vent areas. The Valettiopsis group is remarkable because the bulk of it has remained undiscovered until now and contains species that confuse some previous assumptions about classification within the lysianassoids (see “Discussion of the Valettiopsis Group”). This comes at the time when the lysianassoids are being divided into new families and superfamilies by various colleagues.

None of the taxa is particularly novel in the sense that all are relatives of previously known taxa. New species of the classic genera Euonyx, Hirondellea, Orchomene (Abyssorchomene), and Paralicella are described along with new species in the new genera Apotectonia, Diatectonia, Tectovalopsis, and Transtectonia, which have affinities to Valettiopsis. The new genus Ventiella is a derivative of the classic Schisturella. Revisions of Euonyx, Hirondellea, Paralicella, Schisturella, and Valettiopsis are presented.

METHODS AND PRESENTATION

The 153 genera of the Lysianassidae have been reviewed and widely revised by Bamard and Karaman (in press), and those results have been used here to identify the vent amphipods. Consultation with J.K. Lowry, who is revising the Lysianassoidea, has also been undertaken. Species in previously described genera are set in a generic framework in the style to be presented by Barnard and Karaman (in press), which includes synonymies, diagnoses, lists of species, relationships, variables, and distribution. Each species is provided with a distribution code (in brackets) that follows the world divisions of Barnard and Barnard (1983:183).

MATERIALS

Materials came to us from 3 sources: Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), and the Centre National de Tri d'Oceanographique Biologique (CENTOB); the persons involved are thanked in the acknowledgments. The three institutions were involved in cooperative ventures to collect the materials, the bulk of which comprises duplicate individuals (over 98,000) of the single species Ventiella sulfuris, new species, taken from the vestimentiferan and clam communities near the vents.

MASTER LEGEND

Capital letters denote main parts; lower case letters to left of capital letters or in body of figure indicate modifications; lower case letters to right of capital letters indicate specimens described in legends as follows:

A

antenna

B

body

C

coxa

D

dactyl

E

spine(s)

F

accessory flagellum

G

gnathopod

H

head

I

inner plate or ramus

J

prebuccal

K

lacinia mobilis

L

labium

M

mandible

N

molar

O

outer plate or ramus

P

pereopod

Q

locking spines

R

uropod

S

maxilliped

T

telson

U

labrum

V

palp

W

pleon

X

maxilla

Y

gill

Z

oostegite

a

accessory lobe

d

dorsal

e

enlarged

m

medial

o

opposite

r

right

s

setae removed

t

left

v

ventral

Figures unattributed to a particular specimen depict the specimen named first in the legend. Scale bars in figures indicate additional lengths of parts that are not drawn in detail.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Robert R. Hessler of SIO for his help in organizing this project; Ms. Nancy J. Copley and Ms. I.P. Williams of WHOI and Michel Segonzac of CENTOB for lending us materials, and Ruth Turner of Harvard University, who established the undersea panels on which various amphipods were collected. Linda Lutz of Vicksburg, Mississippi, rendered our pencil work into the inked plates. At the Smithsonian Institution we thank Janice Clark and Lori B. Jackintell for their assistance.

Euonyx Norman

Euonyx Norman, 1867:202 [Euonyx chelatus Norman, 1867, monotypy].—Lincoln, 1979:54.

Leptochela Boeck, 1876:190 [homonym, Decapoda] [Opis leptochela Bate and Westwood, 1868, monotypy].

DIAGNOSIS.—Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle. Labrum and epistome differentially produced, prominent, separate, epistome either strongly dominant in size and projection or not, sharp or blunt. Incisor ordinary, molar of medium size, subconical, setulose, occasionally with weak apical triturative surface but considered as simple molar, palp attached strongly distal. Inner plate of maxilla 1 weakly (usually 3) setose; palp biarticulate, large. Inner plate of maxilla 2 shorter than outer, lined with setae on apical half of medial margin. Inner and outer plates of maxilliped well developed or outer plate small (type), palp strongly exceeding outer plate, dactyl well developed.

Coxa 1 strongly shortened and partly covered by coxa 2, tapering. Gnathopod 1 elongate, thin, strongly chelate, article 5 usually longer than 6, dactyl large; article 6 of gnathopod 2 greatly shorter than article 5, ordinary, propodus strongly subchelate.

Inner ramus of uropod 2 without notch or with weak notches. Uropod 3 ordinary, peduncle ordinary, inner ramus slightly shortened, outer ramus 2–articulate. Telson ordinary to elongate, deeply cleft

ADDITIONAL CHARACTER.—Article 3 of gnathopod 1 elongate.

VARIABLES.—Body almost fully carinate (E. scutatus); article 1 of antenna 1 carinate (type, E. coecus), not cristate (E. biscayensis, E. normani, etc.); epistome produced (type), not produced (E. pirloti, etc.); molar present (E.biscayensis), conicosetulose (E. normani, etc.); spines on outer plate of maxilla 1 small (type), large (most other species); plates of maxilla 2 thin (E. laqueus, E. talismani);, outer plate of maxilliped not larger than inner plate (type), much larger (most other species); plates of maxilliped thinner and more pointed (E. talismani); carpus of gnathopod 1 much shorter than article 6, propodus sinuous (E. normani);, propodus of gnathopod 2 powerful and palm excavate (type), feeble (E. biscayensis, E. normani); length of gnathopod 2 similar to gnathopod 1 (most species), gnathopod 2 much longer than gnathopod 1 (E. talismani).

RELATIONSHIP.—Differing from Opisa in the elongate, non-eusirid carpus of gnathopod 1.

From Valettia in the smooth incisor, non-acute outer plate of maxilliped, and the difference in size between coxae 1–2 (both small in Valettia).

From Aristiopsis in the stronger chela of gnathopod 1, and the long unlobate carpus.

From Cheirimedon in the thin, elongate, and chelate gnathopod 1.

From Kyska in the small coxa 1 and thin gnathopod 1.

SPECIES.—See Stephensen (1923b).

E. biscayensis Chevreux, 1908,1935.—J.L. Barnard, 1961 [426B]

E. chelatus Norman, 1867 (= leptochela Bate and Westwood, 1868).—Sars, 1895.—Gurjanova, 1951.—Lincoln, 1979 [216I+ B]

E. coecus Pirlot, 1933 [718B]

E. conicurus K.H. Bamard, 1955.—Griffiths, 1974b, 1975 [743]

E. laqueus J.L. Barnard, 1967.—Sekiguchi and Yamaguchi, 1983 [510BP]

E. mytilus, new species [501A]

E. normani Stebbing, 1888,1906 [523B]

E. pirloti Sheard, 1938 (= normani ID of Chilton, 1921) [780]

E. scutatus Griffiths, 1977 [701A]

E. talismani Chevreux, 1919–1920.—Stephensen, 1923.—Chevreux, 1927 [240B].

DISTRIBUTION.—Marine, cosmopolitan, descending into cold waters, demersal (coming to baited traps), occasionally associated with echinoderms and deep-sea corals, rarely shallow in rock reefs (see “[780]” above), 1–2900 m, 10 species.

Key to the Species of Euonyx

Euonyx mytilus, new species

FIGURES 1–3

ETYMOLOGY.—The specific epithet is from the Latin mytilus (mussel), referring to associated fauna.

DIAGNOSIS.—Body lacking any prominent dorsal teeth, urosomite 1 smoothly and broadly convex dorsally, urosomite 2 with weak dorsocentral depression bounded laterally by weak notch marking lateral vertical face; lateral cephalic lobes rounded, blunt; article 1 of antenna 1 lacking dorsal crest; propodus about 1.2 times as long as carpus; palm of gnathopod 2 long, almost straight, dactyl barely reaching apex of palm; epimeron 2 with strong tooth, epimeron 3 with tiny posteroventral tooth.

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Female “x” (20.04 mm): Ocular lobes submammilliform, evidence of eyes dim (same as figured for male). Article 1 of primary flagellum short, accessory flagellum 9–articulate. Article 5 of antenna 2 shorter than article 4. Epistome not protruding beyond upper lip. Upper lip with sharp narrow lobe hanging anteroventrally. Incisors bounded by weak tooth on each side, right lacinia mobilis absent, left clavate and denticulate. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with 3 large setae and 8+ apicolateral smaller setae, outer plate with 11 spines, outer margin of palp sinuous, apex with 3 spines, apicolateral margin with 1 spine, 1 seta. Inner plate of maxilliped with 3 small thick apical spines, third spine disjunct from medial pair, with 5 apicomedial locking spines, ventral face with subapical row of 8 short spines; outer plate lined medially with tiny chisel-shaped spines; nail of dactyl very short.

Chela of gnathopod 1 about 0.35 times as long as total propodus including chela. Pereopod 4 like pereopod 3, principal unlocking spine clavate, ornamented, with tiny partner spinule; inner margin of dactyl rugose. Gills present on coxae 2–7, those on coxae 5–6 with accessory gill bearing apical appendage. Oostegites very tiny, slender, present on coxae 2–4 only.

Pleopods 1–3 each with 4 coupling hooks, with 2 accessory straight spines on pleopods 1–2,3 on pleopod 3.

Uropods 1–3 as shown in illustrations but obscured details: medial spines on peduncles of uropods 1–2 = 8 and 3, on outer rami of uropods 1–2 = 3 and 4. Telson with male form of basodorsal denticle rows.

Other Material: Male “y” (19.61 mm): Like female but antennae longer, article 1 of primary flagellum on antenna 1 conjoint, nearly as long as article 1, peduncle of antenna 2 slightly larger than in female; both medial margins of rami on uropod 3 densely setose.

Female “f” (19.85 mm): Article 4 of pereopods 5–7 much stouter than in type series and other specimens reported in “Material” thus like E. talismani.

Male “e” (23.85 mm): Palm of gnathopod 2 slightly longer and scarcely more excavate than in type series, thus slightly more like E. talismani.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 195194, female “x” 20.04 mm.

TYPE LOCALITY.—SIO sta 882, Galapagos Vents, 00°47.9′N, 86°09.2′W, 23 Jan 1979, 2491 m, mussel bed, subsample: clam-bucket residue.

MATERIAL.—Type locality, male “y” 19.61 mm, female “z” 19.54 mm. SIO Station 884, Garden of Eden, 00°47.7′N, 86°07.7′W, 2482 m, 25 Jan 1979, clam bucket residue, 1 male, 1 female; 894, Rose Garden, 00°48.2′N, 86°13.5′W, 2447 m, 19 Feb 1984, amphipod trap; Biocyarise 13°N, 84-41, Thirteen Degree North Rift, 12°48.6′N, 103°56.7′W, 2635 m, 23 Mar 1984, aspirator, male “e” 23.85 mm; Biocyarise 84-45, Thirteen Degree North Rift, 12°48.8N, 103°56.8′W, 2635 m, 27 Mar 1984, trap 1, female “f” 19.85 mm and 1 female.

FIGURE 1.—Euonyx mytilus, new species: unattributed figures = holotype female “x” 20.04 mm; y = male “y” 19.61 mm.

FIGURE 2.—Euonyx mytilus, new species, holotype female “x” 20.04 mm.

FIGURE 3.—Euonyx mytilus, new species: unatributed figures = holotype female “x” 20.04 mm; e = male “e” 23.85 mm.

RELATIONSHIP.—Close to Euonyx laqueus and E. biscayensis but differing from both in the large tooth on epimeron 2. Also differing from E. laqueus in the more adz-shaped coxa 2, smaller tooth of epimeron 3, narrower article 4 of pereopods 6–7 and less-excavate palm of gnathopod 2.

Closest to but differing from E. talismani in the poorly excavate palm of gnathopod 2, the narrower article 4 of pereopod 5, and the orthodox outer plate of the maxilliped; in E. talismani the outer plate of the maxilliped is pointed and lacks apicolateral armaments. The specimens from the 13°N vents are slightly closer to E. talismani than the type series because of slight intermediation in gnathopod 2 and article 4 of pereopods 5–7 (see female “f” and male “e” above).

DISTRIBUTION.—Galapagos Vents and 13°N Vents, 2482–2635 m.

Hirondellea Chevreux

Hirondellea Chevreux, 1889:285 [Hirondellea trioculata Chevreux, 1889, original designation].

Tetronychia Stephensen, 1923b:63 [Tetronychia abyssalis Stephensen, 1923b, original designation].

DIAGNOSIS.—Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle. Labrum and epistome differentially produced, prominent, separate, both strongly projecting, blunt. Incisor ordinary, molar simple, large, conicolaminate or subconical, setulose; palp attached opposite molar. Inner plate of maxilla 1 weakly (2) setose, in adults setae sickle-shaped; palp biarticulate, large. Inner and outer plates of maxilliped well developed, palp strongly exceeding outer plate, dactyl well developed.

Coxa 1 strongly shortened and partly covered by coxa 2, tapering or subrectangular, setation much stronger than on coxae 2–4.

Gnathopod 1 short, strongly subchelate, palm transverse, sometimes chelate, article 5 subequal to or longer than 6, dactyl large; article 6 of gnathopod 2 greatly shorter than article 5, ordinary, propodus minutely chelate.

Inner ramus of uropod 2 with or without large notch. Uropod 3 almost aequiramous, ordinary, peduncle ordinary, outer ramus 2-articulate. Telson elongate, deeply cleft.

ADDITIONAL CHARACTERS.—Eyes when present diffuse, present on the top and sides and sickle-shaped from lateral view; medial apex of palp on maxilla 1 toothed; plates of maxilla 2 short and stout; accessory gill on coxae 5–6 (H. antarctica, H. gigas).

SEXUAL DIMORPHISM.—Flagellum of male antenna 1 proliferate and more elongate (H. gigas); articles 4–5 of antenna 2 with anterior male armament tufts, flagellum elongate (H. gigas), but tufts also present in females of our material.

VARIABLES.—Eyes forming sinuous upside-down question mark or divided into 3 parts, 2 side and 1 top; article 1 of antenna 1 carinate (H. dubia); article 1 of accessory flagellum flat (H. dubia); setae on inner plate of maxilla 1 not sickle-shaped, just thick (H. gigas); outer plate of maxilliped smaller than in type (H. gigas); dactyl of gnathopod 1 very long (H. fidenter), with spinules (H. fidenter), with teeth and setae (young H. gigas), corner of palm projecting (chelate) (H. abyssalis, H. antarctica); inner ramus of uropod 3 slightly shortened (H. gigas); telson short (H. brevicaudata, H. gigas), cleft weak (H. abyssalis, H. brevicaudata).

RELATIONSHIP.—Differing from Euonyx in the short chela of gnathopod 1.

From Opisa and Cheirimedon in the feeble gnathopod 1 and more equally extending rami of uropod 3.

From Adeliella in the longer and more deeply cleft telson, longer rami of uropods 1–2, better armed maxillae, more conicolaminate molar, and stronger lobe of coxa 4.

From Aristiopsis in the unlobate carpus of gnathopod 1 and longer telson.

From Paralicella and Alicella in the short article 3 of gnathopod 1 and the poor medial setosity on the inner plates of maxillae 1–2.

From Eurythenes in the weak article 1 of antenna 2, larger head, and fewer setae on the inner plate of maxilla 1.

From Ambasiopsis in the lack of a differentially produced labrum and larger head.

SPECIES.

H. abyssalis (Stephensen, 1923) [209B]

H. antarctica (Schellenberg, 1926a).—K.H. Bamard, 1930.—Birstein and Vinogradov, 1960.—Andres, 1983 [870 + B + ?523A]

H. brevicaudata Chevreux, 1910,1935, and see herein [231 A]

H. dubia Dahl, 1959.—Birstein and Vinogradov, 1960 [390A = 714,715,523]

H. fidenter J.L. Bamard, 1966a [310B]

H. gigas Birstein and Vinogradov, 1955, 1958, 1960.—Dahl, 1959.—Gurjanova, 1962.—Hessler et al., 1978.—Kamenskaya, 1981 [390A = Philippine, Marianas, Kurile Trenches only]

H. glutonis, new species [504A]

H. guyoti, new species [504A]

H. trioculata Chevreux, 1889; 1900.—Stebbing, 1906 [304B].

DISTRIBUTION.—Marine, Antarctica shallow and cosmopolitan abyssal and hadal, 170–10, 190 m (deepest amphipod record, H. gigas, Philippine Trench), 9 species.

Key to the Species of Hirondellea

Hirondellea gigas (Birstein and Vinogradov)

Tetronychia gigas Birstein and Vinogradov, 1955:228, figs. 11,12.

Hirondellea gigas.—Birstein and Vinogradov, 1958:230; 1960:184; 1963:92.—Dahl, 1959:214, fig. 2.—Gurjanova, 1962:90, fig. 19A, B.—Hessler et al., 1978:1029.—Kamenskaya, 1981:95, figs. 1,2.

MATERIAL.—SIO sta H 186, Philippine Trench, 36.5°N, 125°36.6′E, 9604 m, 2–3 Mar 1975, 16+ specimens; FVBT 11, Mariana Trench, 11°21.7′N, 142°09.5′E, 9755 m, 1 specimen.

DISTRIBUTION.—Kurile-Kamchatka Trench, Philippine Trench, Mariana Trench, 6000–10,150 m (the deepest recorded amphipod collection).

Hirondellea glutonis, new species

FIGURES 4–6

ETYMOLOGY.—The species name is from the Latin gluto (gormandizer).

DIAGNOSIS.—Dactyl of gnathopod 1 mostly fitting palm in adult, scarcely overlapping excavate palm, scarcely toothed, with small inner setules and 3 cusps; pleonite 3 unproduced dorsoposteriorly; epimeron 1 rounded anteroventrally, epimeron 3 rounded behind; urosomite 1 with deep dorsal sinus and long low dorsal hump, urosomal prickles poorly developed; spine row on peduncle of uropod 1 without basal gap; inner ramus of uropod 2 constricted; telson moderately cleft.

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Female “p” 12.45 mm: Rostrum vestigial, lateral cephalic lobe broadly mammilliform, with medium sinus for antenna 2, anteroventral corner sharp; eyes barely indicated by sigmoid outer stain and internal glandular tissue.

Article 3 of antenna 1 invaginated medially, primary flagellum 12-articulate on left, 6-articulate on right (thus right antenna 1 probably regenerant), longer than peduncle, basally conjoint, article 1 slightly shorter than peduncle, heavily armed with rows of aesthetascs; accessory flagellum conjoint basally, 6 articulate on left, 3-articulate on right. Antenna 2 slightly longer than antenna 1, gland cone large, articles 4–5 armed anteriorly with setular tufts, flagellum 13-articulate, shorter than peduncle.

Epistome dominating upper lip, with thin anterior keel, upper lip entire, with small distal lobule. Incisors with inner and outer notch and tooth, right lacinia mobilis apparently absent, left slender, curved, attached at edge of fossa; principal right and left rakers 3 and 2 (unless first right raker = lacinia mobilis), remainder of raker row composed of numerous setae, molar large and strongly pubescent along one side; palp thin, article 2 with line of apicomarginal setae, article 3 slender, tapering, setae = A, 10D, 3E. Lower lip with small gape between outer lobes, mandibular lobes strong, blunt, inner lobes absent. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with typical giant falcate seta and one smaller seta, outer plate with 11 spines in sets of 6 and 5, heavily pubescent, palp article 2 with one or 2 inner notches, inner apex sharp, apex with 5 thick and one slender spines. Apices of maxilla 2 beveled mediad, heavily setose, no facial setae. Inner plate of maxilliped with apicolateral sinus marked laterally with 2 thin spines, medially with 3 teeth, first member of long apicomedial setal row spine-like; outer plate enlarged, medial margin weakly crenulate, bearing line of weak facial setules; articles 3–4 thin, latter unguiform, with weak accessory setule.

Coxa 1 reduced, broader than long, coxae 2–4 longer than broad, coxa 4 well excavate, coxa 5 much shorter than 4. Article 2 of gnathopod 1 densely setose anteriorly, article 6 slightly shorter than 5, weakly tapering, palm weakly excavate, armed with row of 7 principal spines and row of 2 setae; dactyl slightly overlapping palm, with up to 3 small inner teeth or spines. Gnathopod 2 slender and elongate, article 6 much shorter than 5, minutely chelate, palm defined by long thin spine, bearing many palmate spines projecting from inner face of propodus; dactyl fitting palm, with inner and outer wire-seta, subapex with 3 setules.

FIGURE 4.—Hirondellea glutonis, new species: unattributed figures = holotype female “p” 12.45 mm; s = male “s” 7.87 mm.

FIGURE 5.—Hirondellea glutonis, new species: unattributed figures = holotype female “p” 12.45 mm; r = juvenile “r” 5.5 mm; s = male “s” 7.87 mm; u = female “u” 9.21 mm.

FIGURE 6.—Hirondellea glutonis, new species: unattributed figures = holotype female “p” 12.45 mm; r = juvenile “r” 5.5 mm.

Pereopods ordinary and slender, with 2 locking spines, pereopod 4 scarcely smaller than 3; posteroventral margins of article 2 on pereopods 5–7 weakly beveled and lobate. Gills present on coxae 2–6, large, flat, unplaited, only gill 6 with small bullet-shaped accessory lobe.

Epimera unarmed, first rounded behind, second with weak posteroventral tooth, third rounded-quadrate. Pleopods 1–3 elongate, each with 2 coupling hooks, only peduncle of pleopod 1 sparsely setose laterally, rami about 1.35 times as long as peduncle, multiarticulate. Oostegites on coxae 2–5, thin, strap-shaped, well setose mostly behind.

Urosomite 1 with dorsal hump, urosomite 3 much longer than 2. Peduncles of uropods 1–2 each with lateral flange, rami extending equally on both pairs, spinosity ordinary, apical nails not apparent, inner ramus of uropod 2 constricted. Uropod 3 ordinary, rami subequal, outer 2-articulate, poorly spinose. Telson about as long as rami of uropod 3, cleft about 40 percent, each apex with 1–2 weak setule-notches, dorsolateral margins on each side with row of spinules.

Other Material: Female “q” 12.6 mm: Substantially similar to holotype.

Female “u” 9.21 mm: Palm and dactyl of gnathopod 1 as shown in Figure 5.

Male “s” 7.87 mm: Not as large as largest females, therefore setosity and spinosity sparser; flagella of antennae 1–2 stouter than in female, calceoliferous, peduncle of antenna 2 with setular tufts denser than in female; dactyl of gnathopod 1 more strongly overlapping palm than in female (Figure 5); gill of coxa 5 with large subsidiary bullet-shaped lobe (in contrast to female), coxa 6 with smaller lobe as in female; rami of uropod 3 lacking marginal spines; telson with 2 narrowly separated dorsolongitudinal lines of tiny basal denticles.

Juvenile “r” 5.5 mm: Antennae 1–2 much shortened, especially articles 4–5 of antenna 2 shorter and stouter than in adults, flagellum shorter, primary flagellum with 8 articles, accessory flagellum with 4; flagellum of antenna 2 with 8 articles; gnathopod 1 substantially similar to adult but article 2 poorly setose (Figure 5); dorsolateral margin of peduncle on antenna 1 with 10 spines, on uropod 2 with 2 spines.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Figure groups of similar magnification: (1) pereopods 3,5,6,7; (2) uropod 3, telson. Apex of pereopod 5 inserted at same relative magnification from juvenile “q.” Only articles 1–2 of peduncle on antenna 1 show medially on male illustration; article 2 of antenna 1 attached to head like article 1, shown in illustration of male by series of close-set lines.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 195195, female “p” 12.45 mm.

TYPE LOCALITY.—Biocyarise 84–39, Thirteen Degree North Rift, 12°48.6N, 103°56.7′W, 2635 m, 16 Mar 1984, from trap 6.

MATERIAL.—Biocyarise 84–45, 12°48.8′N, 103°56.8′W, 2635 m, trap 1 (7 specimens, including female “q” 12.6 mm, juvenile “r” 5.5 mm); Biocyarise 84–38, 12°48.8N′, 103°56.8′W, 2635 m, 15 Mar 1984, aspirator (female “u” 9.21 mm, oostegites rudimentary); Biocyarise 84–44, 12°48.8′, 103°56.8W, 2635 m, 26 Mar 1984, basket, bicarbonate antibiotic, (large female “t,” oostegites rudimentary). SIO sta 882, Galapagos Vents, 00°47.9’ N, 86°09.2 W, mussel bed, 23 Jan 1979, 2491 m, mix of subsamples, mussel washings and clam bucket residue (11 specimens, including male “s” 7.87 mm).

GLUTTONY.—Most specimens with midgut densely packed with bait food, sterna ventrally extended but coxae not pushed outward as in Paralicella species.

RELATIONSHIP.—There is little distinction between this entity and H. abyssalis (Stephensen, 1923) or H. antarctica Schellenberg (1926a). The latter two species are distinguished from each other by the short dactyl of gnathopod 1 for H. abyssalis and the somewhat more overlapping dactyl of H. antarctica; our entity has the dactyl slightly more overlapping than in H. antarctica. Article 2 on the outer ramus of uropod 3 is elongate as in our entity in H. abyssalis but much shorter in H. antarctica. This may be anomalous in the sense that it was illustrated incorrectly because the beveled attachment plane is deceptive, as shown by Stephensen in right and left views of attached uropod 3 for H. abyssalis. The epistome of our material is more strongly rounded than in H. abyssalis where it is somewhat more subsharply protuberant. K.H. Barnard (1930) shows 4 medial spines on the inner ramus of uropod 3 for H. antarctica versus one spine on our species. Hirondellea abyssalis has 3 of these spines. Hirondellea antarctica has an accessory lobe on gill 5 not present in our material, which has such lobe only on gill 6.

Hirondellea fidenter J.L. Barnard (1966a) differs minutely from this species in the slightly deeper cleft of the telson (somewhat variable in present species), the shorter palm of gnathopod 1 with narrower propodus, more projecting keel on epistome and much more broadly rounded epimeron 3.

DISTRIBUTION.—Galapagos Vents, 2491 m, 13°N Vents, 2635 m.

Hirondellea guyoti, new species

FIGURES 7–9 (part)

ETYMOLOGY.—The species is named for the type locality, Hess Guyot.

DIAGNOSIS.—Dactyl of gnathopod 1 strongly overlapping palm in adult, scarcely toothed, with small inner setules and 1 cusp, palm narrow and deeply excavate. Pleonite 3 unproduced posterodorsally; epimeron 3 with strong recurved anteroventral tooth; epimeron 3 rounded behind; urosomite 1 with strong dorsal sinus followed by large rounded hump, urosomites 1 and 3 without dense dorsal prickles; spine row on peduncle of uropod 1 with basal gap; inner ramus of uropod 2 constricted; telson moderately cleft.

FIGURE 7.—Hirondellea guyoti, new species, holotype male 11.63 mm.

FIGURE 8.—Hirondellea guyoti, new species, holotype male 11.63 mm.

FIGURE 9.—Upper, Hirondellea guyoti, new species, holotype male 11.63 mm. Lower, Hirondellea brevicaudata, juvenile female “b” 5.03 mm.

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Male “Gvp” 11.63 mm: Probably not as fully mature as male of H. glutonis. Rostrum vestigial, lateral cephalic lobe broadly mammilliform, with medium sinus for antenna 2, anteroventral corner sharp; eyes barely indicated by sigmoid outer stain and internal glandular tissue.

Article 3 of antenna 1 invaginated medially, primary flagellum ?-articulate (broken), ?longer than peduncle, basally conjoint, article 1 as long as peduncle, heavily armed with rows of aesthetascs; accessory flagellum conjoint basally, ?5-articulate on left. Antenna 2 ?slightly longer than antenna 1, gland cone large, articles 4–5 armed anteriorly with setular tufts, flagellum 23-articulate, shorter than peduncle, calceoli small.

Epistome dominating upper lip, with thin anterior keel, upper lip entire, with small distal lobule. Incisors with inner and outer notch and tooth, right lacinia mobilis apparently absent, left slender, curved, attached at edge of fossa; principal right and left rakers 3 and 3, remainder of raker row composed of numerous setae, molar large and strongly pubescent along one side, with strong sharp recurved apical point; palp thin, article 2 with line of apicomarginal setae, article 3 weakly falcate, setae =2A, 14D, 2E. Lower lip with small gape between outer lobes, mandibular lobes strong, blunt, inner lobes absent. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with typical giant falcate seta and one smaller seta, outer plate with 11 spines in sets of 7 and 4, heavily pubescent, palp article 2 with one inner notch, inner apex subsharp, apex with 8 thick and one slender spines. Apices of maxilla 2 beveled mediad, heavily setose, no facial setae. Inner plate of maxilliped with apicolateral notch marked laterally with 2 thin spines, medially with long apicomedial row of setae; outer plate enlarged, medial margin weakly crenulate, bearing line of weak facial spines; articles 3–4 thin, latter unguiform, with weak accessory spinule.

Coxa 1 reduced, broader than long, coxae 2–4 longer than broad, coxa 4 well excavate, coxa 5 much shorter than 4. Article 2 of gnathopod 1 densely setose anteriorly, article 6 slightly shorter than 5, tapering, palm narrow, excavate, armed with cusps on either side of excavation, defined by thick spine and slender spine, dactyl strongly overlapping palm, with 1 small inner tooth and several setules. Gnathopod 2 slender and elongate, article 6 much shorter than 5, strongly broadened, minutely chelate, palm broad and hemilunar, defined by short thick spine, bearing few palmate spines projecting from posterior margin but inner face of propodus densely covered with straw-like setules; dactyl failing full reach of palm, with inner wire-seta, subapex with 3–4 setules.

Pereopods ordinary and slender, with 2 locking spines, pereopod 4 smaller than 3; posteroventral margins of article 2 on pereopods 5–7 lobate, weakly beveled only on pereopod 7. Gills present on coxae 2–6, large, flat, weakly plaited, only gill 6 with small conical accessory lobe.

Epimera unarmed, first with anteroventral tooth, rounded behind, second with weak posteroventral protrusion, third rounded-quadrate. Pleopods 1–3 elongate, each with 2 coupling hooks, no peduncle setose laterally, rami about 1.6–1.7 times as long as peduncle, multiarticulate. Oostegites on coxae 2–5, thin, strap-shaped, well setose mostly behind.

Urosomite 1 with dorsal hump (of shape distinct from H. glutonis), urosomite 3 much longer than 2. Peduncles of uropods 1–2 each with lateral flange, spine row on dorsolateral margin of peduncle on uropod 1 with basal gap, rami extending subequally on both pairs, spinosity ordinary, apical nails not apparent, inner ramus of uropod 2 constricted. Uropod 3 ordinary, rami subequal, inner with 8 medial spines, outer 2-articulate, poorly spinose. Telson about as long as rami of uropod 3, cleft about 45 percent, each apex with 1 weak setule-notch, dorsolateral margins on each side with row of 2 spinules.

Other Material: Female “x” 15.70 mm: Much larger than male holotype; head and antennae like male (latter not mature), accessory flagellum 7-articulate; primary flagella broken; flagellum of antenna 2 with 22 articles, calceoli absent; oostegites strap-shaped, thin; spine row on peduncle of uropod 1 also with basal gap, on uropod 2 with 5 spines (versus 3 in male “y”), inner ramus dorsomedially with 9 spines (versus 8), same ramus on uropod 3 with 7 spines; telson like male, also with dorsal denticles.

Juvenile “w” 8.06 mm: Primary flagellum of antenna 1 with 10 articles, of antenna 2 with 14 articles, accessory flagellum broken, calceoli absent; peduncle of uropod 2 with 3 dorsolateral spines, inner ramus with 3 medial spines, same ramus of uropod 3 with 4 medial spines, basalmost spine on each side of telson weak.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Mandibles like H. glutonis.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 195196, male “v” 11.63 mm (illustrated).

TYPE LOCALITY.—SIO Cat. No. C5703, Acc. No. BI-68-45, Cruise STYX-7 MPE 68091 & 2, sta 5, Hess Guyot, 17°53′N, 174°14.8W, 1–2 Sep 1968, 1740 m, free vehicle trap, R/V Agassiz.

MATERIAL.—Type locality, female “x” 15.70 mm, juvenile “w” 8.06 mm, and 2 broken specimens.

RELATIONSHIP.—This is a very distinctive species of Hirondellea because of the strong anteroventral tooth on epimeron 1 and the greatly expanded propodus and hemilunar palm on gnathopod 2. Minor distinctions from H. glutonis include details on the inner and outer plates of the maxilliped, the slightly thicker article 3 of the mandibular palp, the gap in basal spination on the peduncle of uropod 1, the very narrow propodus and palm of gnathopod 1 with strongly overlapping dactyl, the fewer inner teeth on that dactyl, and the less strongly beveled article 2 on pereopod 7.

DISTRIBUTION—Hess Guyot, 1740 m.

Hirondellea brevicaudata Chevreux

FIGURES 9–11 (part)

Hirondellea brevicaudata Chevreux, 1910:1–4, figs. 1,2; 1935:5–7, pl.5: fig.1, pl. 16: fig. 4.

DIAGNOSIS.—Dactyl of gnathopod 1 mostly fitting palm in adult, slightly overlapping excavate palm, scarcely toothed, with small inner setules and 1 (to 3 in adults of literature) cusp; pleonite 1 with dorsoposterior protrusion overhanging urosome; epimeron 1 rounded anteroventrally, epimeron 3 subquadrate behind; urosomite 1 flattened, dorsal hump weak, urosomites 1 and 3 densely prickled; dorsolateral spine row on peduncle of uropod 1 without basal gap; inner ramus of uropod 2 not constricted; telson moderately cleft.

DESCRIPTION.—Juvenile female “b” 5.03 mm: Rostrum vestigial, lateral cephalic lobe broadly mammilliform, with medium sinus for antenna 2, anteroventral corner sharp; eyes barely indicated by internal glandular tissue.

Article 3 of antenna 1 weakly invaginated medially, primary flagellum 8 (?9)-articulate, longer than peduncle, basally conjoint, article 1 shorter than peduncle, heavily armed with rows of aesthetascs; accessory flagellum conjoint basally, 4-articulate. Antenna 2 slightly longer than antenna 1, gland cone large, articles 4–5 armed anteriorly with single setules, flagellum 8-articulate, shorter than peduncle.

Epistome dominating upper lip, with thin anterior keel, upper lip entire, with small distal lobule. Incisors with inner and outer notch and tooth, right lacinia mobilis apparently absent, left slender, curved, attached at edge of fossa; principal right and left rakers 3, remainder of raker row composed of numerous setae, molar large and strongly pubescent along one side, apex of right molar only weakly pointed and composed of 2 weakly articulated spines; palp thin, article 2 with line of apicomarginal setae, article 3 broadened, weakly falcate, tapering, setae = 0A, 9D, 3E. Lower lip with small gape between outer lobes, mandibular lobes strong, blunt, inner lobes absent. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with typical giant falcate seta and one smaller seta, outer plate with 11 spines in sets of 7 and 4, heavily pubescent, palp article 2 with 3 large inner teeth, inner apex sharp, apex with 5 thick and one slender spines. Apices of maxilla 2 beveled mediad, heavily setose, no facial setae, inner plate smaller than in H. glutonis (see illustration). Inner plate of maxilliped with apicolateral sinus marked laterally with 2 thin spines, medially with 2 teeth and one thick short spine, first member of long apicomedial setal row not spine-like; outer plate enlarged, medial margin weakly crenulate, bearing line of weak facial setules; articles 3–4 thin, latter unguiform, with weak accessory setules.

Coxa 1 reduced, broader than long, setae sparse, coxae 2–4 longer than broad, coxa 4 well excavate, coxa 5 much shorter than 4. Article 2 of gnathopod 1 moderately setose anteriorly, article 6 slightly shorter than 5, weakly tapering, palm weakly excavate, armed with row of 3 principal spines and row of 2 setae; dactyl slightly overlapping palm, with 1 inner tooth. Gnathopod 2 slender and elongate, article 6 much shorter than 5, minutely chelate, palm defined by short thick spine, bearing many straw-like setules projecting from inner face of propodus; dactyl fitting palm, with inner and outer wire-seta, subapex with 2 setules.

Pereopods ordinary and slender, with 2 locking spines, pereopod 4 slightly smaller than 3; posteroventral margin of article 2 on only pereopod 7 weakly beveled and lobate, posteroventral lobe on pereopods 5–7 weak, article 2 on pereopods 5–6 especially narrow. Gills present on coxae 2–6, large, flat, unplaited, only gill 6 with vestigial accessory lobe.

Epimera unarmed, first rounded behind, second with weak posteroventral protrusion, third rounded-quadrate. Pleopods 1–3 elongate, each with 2 coupling hooks, no peduncle setose laterally, rami of pleopods 1–3 consecutively 1.4, 1.15, and 1.66 times as long as peduncle, multiarticulate. Oostegites on coxae 2–5 rudimentary.

Urosomite 1 with weak dorsal hump, urosomite 3 much longer than 2, urosomites 1 and 3 with dense dorsal prickles. Peduncle of only uropod 1 with lateral flange, rami extending equally on both pairs, spinosity sparse, apical nails weak, inner ramus of uropod 2 not constricted. Uropod 3 ordinary, rami subequal, outer 2-articulate, poorly spinose. Telson short, about as long as peduncle of uropod 3, cleft about 35 percent, each apex with 1 weak setule-notch, dorsolateral margins on each side without spinules.

Other Material: Juvenile male “c” 4.87 mm: Scarcely distinct from juvenile female; accessory flagellum with 4 articles, primary flagellum of antenna 1 with 9 articles, one calceolus each on articles 6–7; flagellum of antenna 2 with 8 articles; examples of spinosity on uropods: peduncle of uropod 2 with 2 dorsolateral spines, outer ramus with 3; inner ramus of uropod 3 with 1 spine.

Juvenile “d” 3.84 mm: Examples of morphology: main flagellum of antenna 1 with 7 articles, of antenna 2 with 7; peduncle of uropod 2 with 2 dorsolateral spines, outer ramus with 1; inner ramus of uropod 3 with 1 spine.

Juvenile “e” 3.48 mm: Examples of morphology: main flagellum of antenna 1 with 6 articles, of antenna 2 with 5; peduncle of uropod 2 with 1 dorsolateral spine, outer ramus with 1; inner ramus of uropod 3 naked.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Not illustrated: mandibles (except palp), lower lip, and inner plate of maxilla 1 like H. glutonis; note inner plate of maxilla 2 smaller than in H. glutonis, outer plate and palp of maxilla 1 distinctive (illustrated).

MATERIAL.—SIO, Cruise Ship Climax II, station H232, 28°42.0′N, 155°29.2′5899 m, 14 Jun 1977, funnel trap at 0 m (meaning at bottom), 14 specimens, including juvenile female “b” 5.03 mm (illustrated), male “c” 4.87 mm, juvenile “d” 3.84 mm, juvenile “e” 3.48 mm. SIO MPG-I, H248, 30°11.9′N, 157°52.7W, 5765 m, 9 Aug 1978, funnel trap at 0 m (at full depth), 5 specimens.

RELATIONSHIP.—No fully adult specimens are present

FIGURE 10.–Hirondellea brevicaudata, juvenile female “b” 5.03 mm.

This species is characterized by the distinctive appearance of the dorsum on the urosome, the rather flat dorsal hump, and the dense dorsal prickles. The species belongs with the group lacking an incision on the inner ramus of uropod 2; it further differs from H. glutonis, in the lack of flange on uropod 2 peduncle and many minute details of the outer plate and palp of maxilla 1, the inner plate of maxilla 2 and the maxilliped, the narrowness and poor lobation on article 2 of pereopods 5–6, and the shape and lack of spination on the telson. The medial spines on the peduncle of uropod 1 are slightly concentrated basally. Relative to the axial length of epimeron 3, pleonites 1–3 and urosomite 3 are taller than in H. glutonis, and uropods 1–2 are shorter, uropod 3 longer and epimeron 1 larger. We assume these characters are not connected with smallness of the subadults.

FIGURE 11.—Hirondellea brevicaudata, juvenile female “b” 5.03 mm.

The distinctive appearance of the pleon, the lack of incision on the inner ramus of uropod 2, the narrowed article 2 of pereopods 5–6, the short telson, shape of gnathopods, short antennae, and sparse setation on coxa 1 relate this material specifically to H. brevicaudata, an Atlantic species.

To distinguish the material and the original description of H. brevicaudata from H. dubia Dahl (1959, Kermadec Trench) requires the minutiae mentioned by Dahl to be examined, as shown in the key to species. Hence, gnathopod 1 has the shorter and less-tapering propodus not characteristic of H. dubia. Hirondellea brevicaudata has a distinctive urosomite 1 because Dahl describes that of H. dubia as having a deep dorsal excavation.

Hirondellea brevicaudata differs from H. gigas Birstein and Vinogradov (1955) in the narrower article 2 of pereopods 5–6, shorter telson and in large adults (one assumes) the presence of only one inner tooth on the dactyl of gnathopod 1 (see key above). A juvenile 7 mm long depicted by Birstein and Vinogradov (1955) has only 1 inner tooth on the dactyl of gnathopod 1; however, that juvenile, which is larger than ours, has poorly developed setae on maxilla 2, weak palm of gnathopod 1, many fewer articles on flagella of antennae and such poorly developed inner teeth on the palp of maxilla 1 that we question the proper placement of our own material except by invoking the idea that species occurring in trenches have larger-bodied individuals.

Possible characters of value left undescribed in the literature include medial armament on palp of maxilla 1 (H. brevicaudata original description, H. dubia, H. gigas): details of spine pattern on outer plate of maxilla 1 (H. brevicaudata, H. dubia, H. gigas); and full dorsal configuration of pleon (H. dubia, H. gigas).

DISTRIBUTION.—Atlantic Ocean 3000-5940 m (minimum depth based on 0-3000 m tows); Pacific Ocean, north of Hawaii, 5765-5899 m.

Orchomene Boeck

Orchomene Boeck, 1871:114 [Anonyx serratus Boeck, 1861, selected by Boeck, 1876].—J.L. Bamard, 1964b:82 [key].—Lincoln, 1979:68. [Valid subgenus.]

Tryphosa Boeck, 1871:117 [Anonyx nanus Kroyer, 1846b, selected by Boeck, 1876].

Orchomenella Sars, 1895:66 [Anonyx minutus Kroyer, 1846b, original designation of Sars, 1895:67]. [Valid subgenus.]

Orchomenopsis Sars, 1895:73 [Orchomenopsis obtusa Sars, 1895, monotypy]. [Valid subgenus.]

?Allogaussia Schellenberg, 1926a:245 [Allogaussia paradoxa Schellenberg, 1926a, selected by Stasek, 1958]. [?Valid genus.]

Orchomenonyx de Broyer, 1984:198 [Orchomenella macronyx Chevreux, 1905, original designation]. [Valid subgenus of Orchomenopsis.]

Abyssorchomene de Broyer, 1984:198 [Orchomenella chevreuxi Stebbing, 1906, original designation]. [Valid subgenus.]

CLASSIFICATION.—This complex of genera and subgenera is being worked out slowly in the 1980s and 1990s, but is too difficult to treat in more than a superficial way until all of the species have been allocated to their proper genera by the taxonomists engaged in the study. If we allocated to their genera and subgenera various species that have been studied adequately, a pool of taxa would still remain that would have to be “dumped” into Orchomene. The species are divided into subgenera on the basis of extremely small characters that we have not yet been able to use adequately even on preserved specimens. We prefer therefore to leave these taxa together under the genus Orchomene, and refer to them, for the most part, in this section without generic identification.

A summary of the sketchy distinctions of the taxa listed in the synonymy is as follows: Orchomene with mandibular molar in the form of a crest or comb bearing cusps, denticles and “setae” (actually pubescence), outer plate of maxilliped without 2 strong apical spines; Orchomenella with mandibular molar button-shaped (truncated cylinder) and armed with denticles and cusps but no pubescence, outer plate of maxilliped with 2 strong apical spines; this is divided into subgenus Orchomenella with carpal lobe broad and propodus not excavate along posterior margin; and subgenus Orchomenopsis with carpal lobe thinner and propodus with excavate posterior margin; Abyssorchomene with molar like Orchomene, maxilliped like Orchomenella and gnathopod 1 like Orchomenopsis; Allogaussia differing from above genera in lack of coxal gill 7, grotesquely enlarged basis of pereopod 5, uncleft telson and an “elongate” peduncle of antenna 1. We find some of these characters very difficult to evaluate and await further clarification.

DIAGNOSIS.—Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle. Labrum and epistome typically differentially produced, prominent, separate, usually epistome slightly to strongly dominant in size and projection, blunt. Incisor ordinary; molar triturative or simple, medium to small, occasionally conicolaminate or subconical, setulose, palp attached strongly proximal to molar. Inner plate of maxilla 1 weakly (2) setose; palp biarticulate, large. Inner and outer plates of maxilliped well developed, palp slightly exceeding outer plate, dacty1 well developed.

Coxa 1 large and visible, not tapering.

Gnathopod 1 subchelate, palm oblique to transverse, articles 5 and 6 subequal, or 5 shorter than 6, dactyl medium; article 6 of gnathopod 2 shorter than article 5, ordinary, propodus minutely subchelate.

Inner ramus of uropod 2 without notch. Uropod 3 ordinary, peduncle ordinary, inner ramus slightly shortened, outer ramus 2-articulate. Telson ordinary, weakly to deeply (type) cleft or emarginate or entire.

SEXUAL DIMORPHISM.—Male eyes enlarged, antenna 1 stouter and more strongly armed, antenna 2 elongate, with dorsal male setae on articles 4–5 (but often these also present in female), flagellum calceolate, urosomite 1 often more strongly humped and notched dorsally, rami of uropod 3 more subequal and more setose, article 2 on outer ramus often obsolescent to absent.

VARIABLES.—Article 1 of primary flagellum and usually of accessory flagellum elongate in both sexes (but scarcely so in pelagica) (not in franklini, etc.).

Epistome triangularly produced (oxystoma, is this Tryphosites?); epistome and upper lip not differentially produced (chilensis, pinguis, etc.), upper lip dominant (rossi, etc.), weakly so (holmesi), epistome dominant (minuta, serrata, etc.), epistome large and nasiform but poorly separated from labrum (batei).

Molar more or less universal, triturative and symmetrical (goniops, chelipes) to setulose and conicolaminate, thus asymmetrical (obtusus), kernalled and furnished strongly with pubescence between rakers and molar (for example, crispata, amblyops, pedinata), not so (nanus), see Olerod, 1975, for discussion of possible generic values in molar and on outer plate of maxilliped). Article 1 of mandibular palp elongate (magdalenensis); palp strongly proximal to molar (European species, especially serratus, crispatus, humilus, pectinatus, also chilensis), poorly proximal (hureaui, chelipes, goniops, plebs). Inner plate of maxilla 1 with 2 + 2 setae (hureaui); spines on outer plate reduced and fused together or broadened (arnaudi, etc.). Coxa 1 geniculate forward, (lobata and some specimens of nanus); coxa 1 tapering distally (goniops, crenatus, pinguides, etc.), slightly beveled (littoralis, chelipes, tabarini), expanded apically (plebs, etc.). Gnathopod 1 weakly chelate (charcoti, chelipes, reconditus, etc.); article 3 elongate (plicatus); article 5 very short but with long lobe (plicatus) or with long lobe only (rotundifrons, pelagicus, obtusus, etc.), less lobate (minutus). Article 2 of pereopod 5 grotesquely lobate (Allogaussia, for example, paradoxus, pinguides, etc.); article 2 of pereopods 5–7 generally diverse. Epimeron 3 smooth or serrate. Outer rami of uropods 1–2 often slightly shortened, or inner ramus shortened (littoralis); peduncle of uropod 3 plate-like (franklini, grimaldii, etc.), or not (rossi, etc.); inner ramus of uropod 3 significantly reduced (grimaldii, morbihanensis). Telson cleft (typical) to entire (Allogaussia, for example, goniops), or barely cleft and emarginate (grimaldii and chelipes); telson elongate (abyssorum).

REMARKS.—In regard to distinctions among the several genera put into synonymy here, we have studied Olerod (1975) and place O. distinctus and O. abyssorum, described below, into the subgenus Abyssorchomene. This is based on the “large” triturative area of the mandible, with the “hairy process” situated medially, combined with the emergence of 2 long apical spines on the outer plate of the maxilliped. Olerod found that the type species of Orchomene has a very small triturative area, a proximal “hairy process,” and unemergent apical spines on the outer plate of the maxilliped. He put the description of the outer plate on the maxilliped in different words than we use here because we see the difference between outer plates of Orchomene and Orchomenopsis-Orchomenella simply as the emergence or non-emergence of the apical spines and see no particular distinction in the medial and apical spines as being of different kinds as implied by Olerod. Only the type species of Orchomenopsis and Orchomenella and 5 species of Orchomene were studied by Olerod. Until a wider range of species in the complex outside the northeast Atlantic can be studied we prefer to assume these genera represent a range of transformations.

RELATIONSHIP.—Differing from Tryphosites in the unnotched inner ramus of uropod 2 and the shorter carpus of gnathopod 1, which is shorter than the propodus.

Orchomene oxystomus has a sharp protruding epistome like Tryphosites but is distinguished by the above differences.

From Uristes and Tryphosella in the larger head and non-tapering, unreduced coxa 1.

Merging with Lepidepecreum but distinguished by the lack of carinations on antenna 1.

See Gronella.

REMOVALS.—abyssalis Stephensen (1925) to Uristes; groenlandicus (Hansen, 1888) to Gronella; takoradia J.L. Barnard (1961) to Adeliella; reductus (Schellenberg, 1931) to Falklandia.

SPECIES.—See K.H. Barnard (1932); Bellan-Santini (1972a, b); Chevreux and Fage (1925); Gurjanova (1951, 1962); Hurley (1963); G.S. Karaman (1973); Krapp-Schickel (1974); Ledoyer (1977); Lowry and Bullock (1976); Nicholls (1938); Olerod (1975, mouthparts); Reid (1951); Schellenberg (1925, 1926a, 1942); Shoemaker (1920, 1930a, b, 1955); Stephensen (1923a, b, 1925,1928,1929,1935,1944).

aahu Lowry and Stoddart, 1983 [840]

abyssorum Stebbing, 1888.—Nicholls, 1938.—Birstein and Vinogradov, 1960,1962,1964 [420BAV]

acanthurus (Schellenberg, 1931).—Shoemaker, 1945.—Thurston, 1974.—de Broyer, 1985b [870]

amblyops Sars, 1895.—Stephensen, 1935.—Gurjanova, 1951 [216B]

anaquelus J.L. Barnard, 1964b [373]

[dubious species: annulatus (Bate, 1862).—Steele, 1969 (but see Gurjanova, 1962, as Lepidepecreum [395])]

arnaudi Bellan-Santini, 1972b [870]

cavimanus Stebbing, 1888.—J.L. Barnard, 1961.—Bellan-Santini, 1972a, b.—Thurston, 1979.—Andres, 1983.—c. rostratus Schellenberg, 1931 [800BAV + ?303]

charcoti (Chevreux, 1912a, b).—K.H. Barnard, 1932.—Schellenberg, 1931 [870]

chelipes (Walker, 1906,1907).—de Broyer, 1975 [881]

chevreuxi (Stebbing, 1906) (= excavata Chevreux, 1903, homonym) (valid despite J.L. Barnard, 1961) [304A]

chilensis (Heller, 1868).—Schellenberg, 1931, part.—Hurley, 1965b [765]

commensalis (Chevreux and Fage, 1925) [?353]

crenatus (Chevreux and Fage, 1925).—Reid, 1951 [330]

crispatus (Goes, 1866).—Sars, 1895.—Gurjanova, 1951 [240 + B]

decipiens (Hurley, 1963).—J.L. Barnard, 1966a, b, 1971 [379 + B]

depressus Shoemaker, 1930b [254]

dilatatus (Chevreux, 1903,1935) [302A]

distinctus (Birstein and Vinogradov, 1960) [531 A]

faeroensis Stephensen, 1923b [209B]

franklini (Walker, 1903) (= litoralis Schellenberg, 1926a) [Allogaussia].—Hurley, 1965a.—Bellan-Santini, 1972a, b.—Andres, 1983) [870]

galeatus (Schellenberg, 1926a) [Allogaussia] [881]

gerulicorbis Shulenberger and Barnard, 1976 (= affinis ID of Birstein and Vinogradov, 1955).—Thurston, 1979 [422A]

glabrus (Lagardere, 1968) [295]

goniops Walker, 1906,1907.—de Broyer, 1975 [876]

grimaldii Chevreux, 1890.—G.S. Karaman, 1973 [340 + B]

guillei de Broyer, 1985a [851]

hanseni Meinert, 1893 (? = melanophthalmus Norman, 1867).—Sars, 1895.—Stephensen, 1923a [240]

hiata Andres, 1983 [870,875+B]

holmesi, (Hurley, 1963) [369 + B]

humilis (Costa, 1853,1857) (= goesii Della Valle, 1893) (= batei Sars, 1883, 1895; Gurjanova, 1951).—Lincoln, 1979 [352]

hureaui de Broyer, 1973 [878]

indicus (Giles, 1890) (see mannarensis) [664]

intermedius (Gurjanova, 1962) [389]

japonicus (Gurjanova, 1962).—Kudrjaschov, 1972 [389]

kryptopinguides Andres, 1983 [871]

laevipes Stephensen, 1923b [209B]

lepidulus (Gurjanova, 1962).—Bryazgin, 1974 [280 + B]

littoralis (Nagata, 1965) (= sp. Nagata, 1960) [395]

lobatus (Chevreux, 1907, 1935).—Stephensen, 1935.—Gurjanova, 1951 [295 + B]

macronyx (Chevreux, 1905, 1906).—Bellan-Santini, 1972.—Thurston, 1972) [8001]

macrophthalmus (Birstein and Vinogradov, 1962) [Allogaussia] [806B]

macroserratus Shoemaker, 1930b.—Dunbar, 1954.—Gurjanova, 1962.—Biyazgin, 1974 [200]

magdalenensis (Shoemaker, 1942).—J.L. Barnard, 1964a, b, 1969a, b) [370]

?mannarensis (Rabindranath, 1971) (? = Anonyx indicus Giles, 1890) [664]

massiliensis Ledoyer, 1977 [348 +B]

melanophtalmus [misspelling] (Gurjanova, 1962) [not melanophthalmus Norman, see hanseni] [286]

minor Bulycheva, 1952.—Gurjanova, 1962.—Kudrjaschov and Zvjagintsev, 1975 [389]

minusculus (Gurjanova, 1962).—Kudrjaschov, 1972 [389]

minutus (Kroyer, 1846a, b).—Sars, 1895.—Bousfield, 1973 [200]

morbihanensis Bellan-Santini and Ledoyer, 1974 [851]

musculosus Stebbing, 1888.—J.L. Barnard. 1961 [280N + ?740A]

nanus (Kroyer, 1846a, b) (= ciliata G.O. Sars, 1883,1895).—G.S. Karaman, 1973.—Lincoln, 1979 [385]

naviculus (K.H. Barnard, 1932) [Allogaussia] [871 + B]

nodimanus (Walker, 1903).—Bellan-Santini, 1972a, b.—Thurston, 1974 [870]

nugax (Holmes, 1904).—Gurjanova, 1962 [277]

obtusus (Sars, 1895) (= affinis Holmes, 1908).—Hurley, 1963 [210 + B]

oxystomus Stephensen, 1923b [212A]

pacificus (Gurjanova, 1938,1951,1962).—J.L. Barnard, 1971 [230+B]

paradoxus (Schellenberg, 1926a) [Allogaussia] [881]

pectinatus Sars, 1883,1895.—Gurjanova, 1951 [200 + B]

pelagicus (Birstein and Vinogradov, 1960) [523A]

pinguides (Walker, 1903) [Allogaussia] (= lobata K.H. Barnard, 1932.—Hurley, 1965a) [870]

pinguis (Boeck, 1861).—Sars, 1895.—Bousfield, 1973 [200 + B]

plebs (Hurley, 1965c).—Bellan-Santini, 1972.—Thurston, 1974.—Andres, 1983 [870 + B]

plicatus (Schellenberg, 1926a) (= chilensis ID of Schellenberg, 1925).—Griffiths, 1973,1974a, b, 1975 [743]

proximus (Chevreux, 1903,1935) [401B]

reconditus (Stasek, 1958) [Allogaussia] [371]

rossi (Walker, 1903).—Hurley, 1965a.—Andres, 1979,1983 [870 + B]

rotundifrons (K.H. Barnard, 1932).—Thurston, 1974a, b [870]

schellenbergi Thurston, 1972 [833]

scotianensis Andres, 1983 [871 + B]

serratus (Boeck, 1861).—Sars, 1895.—Vader, 1969 [200 + B]

sibirjakovi Gurjanova, 1951 [220 + B]

similis Chevreux, 1912b.—Chevreux and Fage, 1925.—Toulmond, 1964 [242]

tabarini Thurston, 1972,1974a.—Andres, 1979,1983 [875]

tabasco J.L. Barnard, 1967 [309B]

thorii Stephensen, 1923b [209B]

triangulus (Stephensen, 1925).—Gurjanova, 1951 [253]

tschernyschevi Bruggen, 1909.—Stephensen, 1935.—Gurjanova, 1951 [216 + 280]

ultimus Bellan-Santini, 1972b [878]

zschaui (Pfeffer, 1888).—Schellenberg, 1931.—K.H. Barnard, 1932.—Stephensen, 1938.—Andres, 1983 [833 +871B]

species (plural).—Sowinsky, 1898 [334]

affinis ID of Sivaprakasam, 1968 [664]

DISTRIBUTION.—Marine, cosmopolitan, but mostly cold or deep water, rare in shallow tropics, occasionally inquilinous, 0–9938 m, 79 species.

Orchomene (Abyssorchomene) distinctus Birstein and Vinogradov, new combination

FIGURES 12–14

Orchomenella distinctus Birstein and Vinogradov, 1960:191–192, fig. 10.

DIAGNOSIS.—(Based on new material.) Lateral cephalic lobes broadly rounded. Eyes long, flask-shaped, very pale pink, mostly glandular, ommatidia not evident, about 60 percent as high as head. Peduncle of antenna 1 not keeled. Epistome and upper lip each rounded anteriorly, projecting equally, epistome weakly dominant in size. Each mandible with 3 rakers, molar of medium size, trituration surface of medium extent, with 4 crater-pits, hairy process attached medial to molar; article 1 of palp very short. Inner plate of maxilliped with mediodistal extension.

Carpus of gnathopod 1 short, posterior lobe narrow, scarcely exceeding posterior tangential line between merus and propodus, lobe rounded apically, propodus 2.2 times as long as carpus, weakly tapering, posterior margin weakly sinuate, lacking tubercle, palm transverse, convex, almost chelate, dactyl barely overriding palm. Carpus of gnathopod 2 elongate, about 0.35 times as wide as long, propodus about 0.55 times as long as carpus, 60 percent as wide as long, scarcely narrower than carpus, palm elongate, transverse, sinuate, dactyl long but covering only 60 percent of palmar edge, palm defined by cusp.

Coxa 5 with weak posterior lobe exceeding anterior ventral tangent. Article 2 of pereopods 5–7 with sparse, very weak posterior setule-notches. Article 2 of pereopod 5 of normal breadth and dimensions. Article 4 of pereopod 5 weakly expanded and bearing posterior setae, of pereopods 6–7 narrower and with short posterior spines only; article 6 of pereopods 5–7 much longer and slightly narrower than article 5.

Epimeron 3 broadly rounded posteroventrally, smooth. Dorsal process of urosomite 1 hood-shaped, weakly overvaulting urosomite 2. Female uropod 3 setose on medial margins of both rami, outer non-apical margins with 2 (outer) and 1 (inner) spines. Telson cleft about 53 percent of its length.

DESCRIPTION.—Female “o”: See illustrations. Upper lip with asymmetrical weakly bifid anterior lobe (shown unrolled in one illustration). Weakly plaited gills present on coxae 2–7, those of coxae 5–6 with conical accessory lobe. Oostegites poorly developed, bearing only few setal buds.

Other Material: Male “r”: Poorly developed; callynophore better developed than in female “o”; antenna 2 flagellum beginning to proliferate, calceoli present.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Uropod 3 and telson equally magnified, uropod 2 less, uropod 1 even less. Maxillae 1–2 evenly magnified. Male antenna 2 enlarged more than antenna 1. One view of upper lip showing ventral lobe unrolled from normally curled position.

MATERIAL.—Illustrated, Biocyarise 84–39, 12°48.6′, 103°56.7′W, 2635 m, 16 Mar 1984, 2635 m, subsample aspirator (1 specimen), subsample in vestimentiferan refuse (24 specimens), female “o” 13.92 mm, prinicpal illustration, female “p” 15.92 mm, female “q” 14.04 mm, male “r” 12.32 mm; specimens “o,” “q,” and “r” were of gluttonous form. Other material from the same locality: Biocyarise 84–33, 12°48.6′N, 103°56.7′W, 2635 m, 10 Mar 1986, aspirator, mature female about 17 mm long, with fully setose oostegites; PL 37, left tubes, one female; Biocyarise 84–38, 12°48.8′N, 103°56.8′W, 2635 m, aspirator, 4 specimens.

REMARKS.—The original description of this species contained illustrations only of antenna 1, palp of maxilla 1, maxilla 2, gnathopods 1–2, urosomite 3 with epimeron 3, uropod 3 and the telson. The species, is however, so unique within the Orchomene complex because of the shape of gnathopod 2 that we have no hesitation in identifying our material with O. distinctus.

FIGURE 12.—Orchomene distinctus: unattributed figures = female “o” 13.92 mm; r = male “r” 12.32 mm.

FIGURE 13.—Orchomene distinctus, female “o” 13.92 mm.

FIGURE 14.—Orchomene distinctus, female “o” 13.92 mm.

DISTRIBUTION.—Type locality, near Palau, 5°02′N, 135°33′E, 4732 m, trawl 0-2000 m; East Pacific vent region 13°N, 2635 m.

Orchomene (Abyssorchomene) abyssorum Stebbing, new combination

FIGURES 15–17

Orchomene abyssorum Stebbing, 1888:676–679, pl. 21; 1906:84.—Chevreux, 1900:23–24; 1903:92; 1905:7; 1935:59–60.—Stephensen, 1925:125.—Nicholls, 1938:35–36, fig. 15.—Dahl, 1954:282.—Birstein and Vinogradov, 1960:188–189, fig. 8; 1962:44; 1964:164.

?Not Orchomenopsis chilensis forma abyssorum Schellenberg, 1926a:291–292, fig.27.

?Orchomenella abyssorum K.H. Barnard, 1932:69, figs. 27b, 28.—?Nicholls, 1938:35–36, fig. 15.

DIAGNOSIS.—(Based on new material.) Lateral cephalic lobes broadly rounded. Eyes long, lunate, colorless in alcohol, glandular, ommatidia not evident, about 40 percent as high as head. Peduncle of antenna 1 barely keeled. Epistome flat and and upper lip rounded anteriorly, projecting equally, epistome weakly dominant in size. Each mandible with 3 rakers, molar of medium size, trituration surface of medium extent, with 4 crater-pits, hairy process attached medial to molar; article 1 of palp very short. Inner plate of maxilliped with mediodistal extension.

Carpus of gnathopod 1 short, posterior lobe narrow, well exceeding posterior tangential line between merus and propodus, guarding propodus, lobe rounded apically, propodus 1.75 times as long as carpus, weakly tapering, posterior margin weakly sinuate, lacking tubercle, palm transverse, convex, almost chelate, dactyl barely overriding palm. Carpus of gnathopod 2 not greatly elongate, about 0.40 times as wide as long, propodus about 0.44 times as long as carpus, 50 percent as wide as long, much narrower than carpus, palm short, chelate, not lunate, dactyl short and covering 100 percent of palmar edge, palm defined by thin spinule and bearing weak inner setal basket.

Coxa 5 with weak posterior lobe exceeding anterior ventral tangent. Article 2 of pereopods 5–7 with sparse, weak posterior setule-notches. Article 2 of pereopod 5 of normal breadth and dimensions. Article 4 of pereopod 5 weakly expanded and bearing posterior few posterior setae, of pereopods 6–7 narrower and with short posterior spines only; article 6 of pereopods 5–7 much longer and slightly narrower than article 5.

Epimeron 3 weakly sinuous posteriorly, produced into weak blunt tooth posteroventrally, smooth. Dorsal process of urosomite 1 hood-shaped, weakly overvaulting urosomite 2. Female uropod 3 sparsely setose on medial margins of both rami, outer non-apical margins naked. Telson cleft 50 percent of its length.

DESCRIPTION.—Male “s”: See illustrations. Right antenna 2 with only one calceolus present, on article 4 of flagellum; see left antenna 2 illustrated. Upper lip with asymmetrical weakly bifid anterior lobe as shown for O. distinctus. Left lacinia mobilis with 2 apical prongs. Weakly plaited gills present on coxae 2–7, those of coxae 5–6 with terete accessory lobe. Male penes extremely small and located centrally on sternite 7. Oostegites unknown, female not collected.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Uropod 3 and telson equally magnified, uropod 2 less, uropod 1 even less. Maxillae 1–2 not evenly magnified. Straw-like publescence on enlargement of inner plate on maxilliped reduced in illustratioon. Enlargement for gnathopod 2 more magnified than for gnathopod 1; note on propodus apex of gnathopod 2 medial side with giant complex setae, lateral side with thin simple setae. Dactyl of pereopods 3–4 like O. abyssorum illustration.

MATERIAL.—Illustrated, SIO Station 882, Galapagos Vents, 00°47.9′N, 86°09.2′W, 23 Jan 1979,2491 m, mussel bed, clam bucket residue, one male “s” 6.41 mm.

REMARKS.—The single male specimen corresponds favorably with the original description of the species and with Birstein and Vinogradov's (1960) figures and description. These are the only other firm identifications for this species, the original from the South Atlantic off Buenos Aires at 3578 m and the second from north of New Zealand at about 3000 and 9000 m. This would seem to confirm that this species may have a worldwide abyssal distribution. The record by K.H. Barnard (1932) from the South Shetlands 0–800 m seems doubtful owing to remarks by Barnard on the maxillae. The record by Nicholls (1938) must be questioned because he saw only 7 or 8 spines on the outer plate of maxilla 1; however, the configuration of spines on those plates can be misleading, with only 8 showing clearly. The record by Schellenberg (1926a) is clearly wrong because of distinctive shapes on gnathopod 2 and epimeron 3. Despite those probable misidentifications of antarctic material, the unsubstantiated records by Birstein and Vinogradov (1962 and 1964) of antarctic material must be accepted because of the correct identification in (1960). Those records range between 210 and ?3700 (?9120) m (calculating bottom depths and wire lengths). Dahl (1954) also found the species at 550–560 m in the antarctic in Ross Sea. Stephensen (1925) reported the species from west of Iceland, 2317 m; and Chevreux (1900,1903, and 1935) gave numerous records from the North Atlantic Ocean between depths of 1414 and 4330 m.

DISTRIBUTION.—Type locality, off Buenos Aires; confirmed also from north of New Zealand and from the Galapagos Vent area, 2491 m; depths generally 550 to 4330 m; if other antarctic records prove to be valid, depths in Antarctica may be much shallower; and individuals there may be very abundant.

FIGURE 15.—Orchomene abyssorum, male “s” 6.41 mm.

FIGURE 16.—Orchomene abyssorum, male “s” 6.41 mm.

FIGURE 17.—Orchomene abyssorum, male “s” 6.41 mm.

Schisturella Norman

Schisturella Norman, 1900:208 [Tryphosa putchra Hansen, 1887, monotypy).—J.L. Barnard, 1967:71 [key].

Pseudonesimus Chevreux, 1926:3 [Pseudonesimus abyssi Chevreux, 1926, monotypy).

Thrombasia J.L. Barnard, 1966a:72 [Thrombasia tracalero J.L. Barnard, 1966a, original designation).

DIAGNOSIS.—Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle. Labrum and epistome differentially produced, prominent, separate, labrum strongly dominant in projection, blunt Incisor ordinary, molar weakly triturative, large, also setulose; palp attached opposite molar. Inner plate of maxilla 1 weakly (2) setose; outer plate with 7 spines; palp triturative, large. Inner and outer plates of maxilliped well developed, palp strongly exceeding outer plate, dactyl well developed.

Coxa 1 strongly shortened and partly covered by coxa 2, tapering or truncate.

Gnathopod 1 short, nearly simple (type) or strongly subchelate, palm oblique to transverse, articles 5 and 6 subequal, or 6 shorter than 5, dactyl large; article 6 of gnathopod 2 greatly shorter than article 5, ordinary, propodus minutely chelate.

Inner ramus of uropod 2 with large notch. Uropod 3 almost aequiramous, ordinary, peduncle ordinary, outer ramus 2-articulate. Telson elongate (type) or short, weakly to deeply (type) cleft

ADDITIONAL CHARACTERS.—Inner plate of maxilla 2 medially setose, one seta enlarged, apex of outer plate of maxilliped with 2–3 spines (versus 5–7 in Parsehisturella).

SEXUAL DIMORPHISM.—Male flagellum of antennae 1–2 elongate and calceoliferus, female antenna 1 with calceoli.

VARIABLES.—Antenna 1 apex of flagellum article 1 with large spine (S. pulchra); mandibular molar poorly triturative and well setulose (S. tracalero; S. totorame), palp article 3 very short (S. zopa) (S. grabensis); coxa 1 variable, short or long, quadrate or triangular, but coxa 1 also slightly elongate (S. tracalero); gnathopod 1 simple (type), subchelate, palm oblique (S. adversicola, S. rotundatus, S. dorotheae), almost simple (S. cocula), subchelate, palm transverse (S. zopa; S. robusta; S. abyssi); telson deeply cleft (type, etc.), cleft 1/3 (S. adversicola, etc.)

RELATIONSHIP.—Metambasia differing from Schisturella and Ambasiopsis primarily in complete loss of palm in gnathopod 1.

From Ambasiopsis in the strong notch on the inner ramus of uropod 2, stronger medial setation on maxilla 2, and lack of major dorsal hump or tooth on urosomite 1. The type species of Ambasiopsis has no apical spines on the outer plates of the maxillipeds. The type species of Schisturella has many distal spines. Usually Ambasiopsis has a stout gnathopod 1 and Schisturella has a thin gnathopod 1.

From Hirondellea in smaller head, sharper ocular lobe, dominance of labrum, and lack of inner serration on palp of maxilla 1.

From Aristiopsis in lacking hump on epistome and absence of lobe on carpus of gnathopod 1.

From Gronella groenlandica in dominance of upper lip (not dominance of epistome), unlobed carpus of gnathopod 1 and more distally placed mandibular palp.

REMOVAL.—Schisturella galatheae Dahl (1959) transferred to Galathella Barnard and Karaman (1987).

SPECIES.

S. abyssi (Chevreux, 1926, 1935).—J.L. Barnard, 1967.—S. a. tasmanensis J.L. Barnard, 1961 [420A]

S. adversicola (K.H. Barnard, 1925).—Schellenberg, 1926b.—J.L. Bamard, 1962 [735BA]

S. cocula J.L. Bamard, 1966a [372]

S. dorotheae (Hurley, 1963) [373]

S. grabensis J.L. Bamard, 1967 [309B]

S. pulchra (Hansen, 1888).—Shoemaker, 1930a.—Schellenberg, 1935.—Gurjanova, 1962.—Sekiguchi and Yamaguchi, 1983 [200 + AB]

S. robustus (J.L. Bamard, 1961).—S. r. cedrosiana J.L. Bamard, 1967 [715A + 309B]

S. rotundatus (K.H. Bamard, 1926).—J.L. Bamard, 1962, 1967 [735BA]

S. totorami J.L. Bamard, 1967 [373]

S. tracalero J.L. Bamard, 1966a [373]

S. zopa J.L. Bamard, 1966a [310B]

DISTRIBUTION.—Marine, cosmopolitan cold water, thus tropically submergent, 75-4961 m, comes to baited traps, 11 species.

Key to the Species of Schisturella and Ventiella, new genus

Ventiella, new genus

ETYMOLOGY.—The genus name is from the Latin ventilare (to fan) plus ella (diminutive).

Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle. Labrum and epistome differentially produced, prominent, separate, labrum strongly dominant in size and projection, blunt. Incisor ordinary, molar triturative, small; palp attached opposite molar. Inner plate of maxilla 1 weakly (2) setose; palp Particulate, large. Inner plate of maxilla 2 with mediomarginal row of about 7 setae. Inner and outer plates of maxilliped well developed, palp strongly exceeding outer plate, dactyl well developed.

Coxa 1 strongly shortened and partly covered by coxa 2, tapering.

Gnathopod 1 short, poorly subchelate, palm oblique, article 5 longer than 6, dactyl large; article 6 of gnathopod 2 greatly shorter than article 5, ordinary, propodus minutely chelate.

Inner ramus of uropod 2 without notch. Uropod 3 ordinary, peduncle ordinary, inner ramus slightly shortened, outer ramus 2-articulate. Telson ordinary, short, weakly cleft.

ADDITIONAL CHARACTERS.—Antenna 1 base of primary flagellum conjoint and thin; inner plate of maxilla 2 basalmost medial seta largest; dactyl of gnathopod 1 with inner tooth.

SEXUAL DIMORPHISM.—Male antenna 1 accessory flagellum basal article as long as article 1 of primary flagellum (shorter in female).

TYPE SPECIES.—Ventiella sulfuris, new species, here designated.

RELATIONSHIP.—Differing from Ambasiopsis in the thinner gnathopod 1, presence of 11 spines on outer plate of maxilla 1 (versus 7), presence of 1 major and 2 appressed spines on apex of inner plate on maxilliped (intermediated by A. tumicornis), short gape-cleft of telson, major inner seta on inner plate of maxilla 2 basalmost, non-pubescent molar with strong ridges, and appressed lobes of lower lip.

From Galathella in the unproduced epistome.

From Schisturella in the more compressed apex of inner plate on maxilliped, bearing lateral acclivities, uropod 2 inner ramus not incised, and telson with short gape-cleft.

From Cedrosella Bamard and Karaman (1987) in article 5 of gnathopod 1 being longer than article 6, better triturative molar, weakly cleft telson and oblique palm of gnathopod 1.

SPECIES.

V. sulfuris, new species [540A]

DISTRIBUTION.—Marine, deep sea sulphurated hydrothermal vent communities, eastern Pacific Ocean, 2450–2676 m, 1 species.

Ventiella sulfuris, new species

FIGURES 18–21

ETYMOLOGY.—The species name is from the Latin sulfur (brimstone).

DIAGNOSIS.—With the characters of the genus.

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Female “a” 6.24 mm: Rostrum small, sinus for antenna 1 rather flat; sinus for antenna 2 shallow, marked below by sharp tooth; eyes absent. Front of head with long thin keel partly comprising epistome, upper lip well projecting, blunt, marked off by deep sinus-fold, from anterior view upper lip small, narrow, comprising 2 setulose lobes widely separated.

Base of primary flagellum conjoint, article 1 thus slightly longer than articles 2–3 of peduncle combined, armed with about 6 ranks of mostly medial aesthetascs between M0.6 and M.60, seventh rank fully terminal medially; flagellum with 19 articles, following articles with one each apicomedial aesthetasc: 3,7,11,15,17; accessory flagellum with 5 articles, basalmost elongate and medially flattened. Antenna 2 reaching to apex of antenna 1 in normal mode, article 5 longer than 4, flagellum with 21 articles.

Incisors of mandibles slightly convex, smooth in middle, each outer corner with 1–2 sharp boundary teeth, right lacinia mobilis absent, left, long and linguiform, right and left with 3 rakers each, edge between rakers and molar finely pubescent; molars small but strongly triturative, lacking molarial seta; palp attached opposite molar, article 1 short, article 2 elongate, bearing outer apical brush of 10 setae, article 3 almost 60 percent as long as article 2, scarcely falcate, with one basal A-seta, 9 D-setae, 3 E-setae.

Lower lip as illustrated. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with 2 thick apical setae, outer plate with 11 spines, one of these disjunct medioproximally, another small one disjunct to medial side of main group, spines denticulate; apex of palp article 2 with 10 thick short spines and one apciolateral thinner spine and one apicolateral thin seta. Inner plate of maxilla 2 thinner than outer, both reaching subequally, inner with medial setae on apical half, basalmost seta enlarged. Inner plate of maxilliped reaching apex of palp article 1, inner apex with one stout spine and 2 thinner overlain spines, apicolateral margin acclivitous, outer plate not exceeding inner plate, apex with one stout and 3 thin spines, medial margin with subcircular immersed spines, palp strongly exceeding outer plate, dactyl elongate, unguiform, with short nail and 2 accessory setules.

Coxa 1 about 65 percent as long as coxa 2, apex blunt, coxae 2–3 rectangular, coxa 4 with large, dorsally subsharp posteroventral lobe; coxae 1–4 armed ventrally with sparse setules. Oostegites on coxae 2–5 small, slender, asetose. Branchiae on coxae 2–7, that of coxa 2 largest, that of coxa 7 small, gills 5–6 each with long tubular accessory lobe, of coxa 7 with shorter mostly amalgamated lobe-like thickening.

FIGURE 18.—Ventiella sulfuris, new species: unattributed figures = holotype female “a”; e = male “e.”

FIGURE 19.—Ventiella sulfuris, new species, holotype female “a.”

FIGURE 20.—Ventiella sulfuris, new species, holotype female “a.”

FIGURE 21.—Ventiella sulfuris, new species: unattributed figures = holotype female “a”; e = male “e.”

Article 2 of gnathopod 1 about 1.3 times as long as coxa 1, article 6 of gnathopod 1 about 85 percent as long as article 5, palm 45 degrees oblique, defined by one spine, dactyl curved, fitting palm, with inner tooth; dactyl of gnathopod 2 in middle of apex on article 6, not reaching apex of slightly chelate palm.

Pereopods 3–4 slender, each with one unlocking spine. Pereopod 7 longest of pereopods 5–7, each article 2 with small posteroventral lobe, article 2 of pereopod 7 strongly pyriform; only mid anterior margin of pereopod 5 heavily setose (parts of articles 2–4).

Epimeron 1 broadly rounded behind, epimera 2–3 with straighter posterior margins, rounded posteroventral corners, no significant armaments; pleopodal peduncles without setae, bearing 2 coupling hooks, rami 1.6 times as long as peduncle, inner rami with 13 articles, outer rami of uropods 1–2 with 15, of pleopod 3 with 14 articles. Urosomite 1 with thick, low dorsal keel rising rearward.

Uropods 1–3 reaching equally; peduncle of uropod 1 evenly spinose medially but dorsolateral row discontinguous in middle, outer ramus with 3–4 dorsal spines, inner with 4; apical nails on rami of uropods 1–2 present but very transparent; peduncle of uropod 1 with 3 dorsolateral spines subapically, with 2 medial spines, outer ramus with 3 spines, inner with 3 medial and one subapicolateral. Outer ramus of uropod 3 slightly longer than peduncle, article 2 about 33 percent as long as article 1, latter with 2 lateral spines and 1 apical spine on each side, apex of article 2 with setule notch; inner ramus reaching to base of article 2 on outer ramus, with 1–2 (variable) medial and 2 lateral spines. Telson as long as wide, cleft only 10 percent, each apex with setule notch, armed dorsally at M.70 with pair of penicillate setules and slightly lateral spine.

Other Material: Male “e” 5.61 mm: Like female but articles of flagella on antennae slightly thicker, primary flagellum of antenna 1 with 21 articles, one medial aesthetasc present on articles 2,4,8,12,18,20,21, 2 aesthetascs each on articles 3 and 14, conjoint base with 9 ranks of aesthetascs evenly distributed from base to apex; accessory flagellum with 4 articles, basal article as long as conjoint base of primary flagellum (in female this article much shorter than conjoint base); uropod 3 like female but outer ramus lacking lateral spines (probably size or age factor); telson like female but slightly narrower, middorsal surface with 2 apposed rows of tiny denticles.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Pereopod 3 (not illustrated) like pereopod 4. Maxillae 1–2 and maxilliped magnified alike. Coxae as shown on body not flattened but legs flattened.

Juvenile “j” 1.82 mm: Primary flagellum of antenna 1 with 9 articles, accessory flagellum with 3, flagellum of antenna 2 with 8 articles; all rami of uropods 1–2 with 1 spine; peduncle of uropod 1 with 1 apicolateral spine, 2 medial spines, peduncle of uropods 2–3 with 1 apicolateral spine; outer ramus of uropod 3 with 1 apicolateral spine on article 1, no spine medially, inner ramus lacking spines. Telson like adult.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 195147, young female “a,” 6.24 mm.

TYPE LOCALITY.—Galapagos Rift Vent, SIO station 990, 00°48″N, 86°13′W, 7 Dec 1979,2451 m.

MATERIAL.—Type locality, male “e” 5.61 mm (illustrated), juvenile “j” 1.82 mm, and 16 other specimens. I.P. Williams material, WHOI-EPR-21°N Dive 1218-15, clam & crab trap wash, 11 adults, 49 juveniles; 1221-12, slurp fissure with clams, 2 young; 1223-11, fine frac, about 900 juveniles. OASIS 5/718 2, sta 1223-17, 9 adults, 10 hatchlings. Turner/Copley material, WHOI, Dive 984, Panel 10, Rose Garden, 6 specimens.

DISTRIBUTION.—Eastern Pacific at Galapagos Vents about 00°N, 86°W, and vents at 13°N, 109°W, 2450–2676 m.

SELECTED SAMPLE SUMMARY

Paralicella Chevreux

Paralicella Chevreux, 1908:3 [Paralicella tenuipes Chevreux, 1908, original designation].—Barnard and Shulenberger, 1976:267.

DIAGNOSIS.—Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle. Labrum and epistome not differentially produced, separate, labrum weakly dominant. Incisor ordinary, molar simple or barely triturative, large, conicolaminate, setulose, palp attached opposite molar. Inner plate of maxilla 1 strongly (10+) setose; palp biarticulate, large. Inner plate of maxilla 2 slightly smaller than outer, with oblique facial row of setae (9+), but number of setae about half that in Valettietta. Inner and outer plates of maxilliped well developed, inner with oblique apical margin, with excavation separating spines or some spines attached within excavation, palp strongly exceeding outer plate, dactyl well developed, ordinary, tapering, lacking strong acclivity, with long apical nail(s) and accessories.

Coxa 1 large and visible, adz-shaped and expanding apically, or occasionally significantly shortened, tapering and partially covered by coxa 2. Coxa 4 with well-developed posteroventral lobe.

Gnathopod 1 subchelate, palm oblique, article 3 elongate (versus Aristias, Eurythenes); articles 5 and 6 subequal, dactyl large; article 6 of gnathopod 2 slightly shorter than article 5, both very elongate and linear, propodus subchelate, palm oblique or almost obsolescent, but well defined, dactyl large. Article 2 of pereopods 5–7 diverse in size and form.

Outer ramus of uropod 2 and usually uropod 1 shorter than inner; inner ramus of uropod 2 without notch. Uropod 3 ordinary, peduncle slightly elongate, rami subequal, outer ramus 2-articulate. Telson elongate, deeply cleft.

ADDITIONAL CHARACTERS.—Flagella of antennae elongate, articles short; article 1 of antenna 2 swollen; article 5 of antenna 2 usually moderately to greatly shortened.

SEXUAL DIMORPHISM.—Article 1 of primary flagellum on antenna 1 more elongate and better armed in male; urosomite 1 often with dorsal notch in male.

VARIABLES.—Coxa 1 reduced (P. similis, P. vaporalis, new species); article 2 of pereopods 5–7 alike (P. fusiformis), diverse (type, etc.); article 2 of pereopod 7 strongly beveled (type, etc.), poorly beveled (P. caperesca, etc.), not beveled (P. fusiformis, etc.); article 2 on outer ramus of uropod 3 variable in length.

RELATIONSHIP.—Like Alicella but gnathopod 1 subchelate.

Differing from Eurythenes in the elongate article 3 of gnathopod 1.

SPECIES.—See Gurjanova (1962, minor records).

P. caperesca Shulenberger and Barnard, 1976.—Thurston, 1979 [422A]

P. fusiformis (Birstein and Vinogradov, 1955, 1958) [510A]

P. microps (Birstein and Vinogradov, 1958, 1960) [510A]

P. similis Birstein and Vinogradov, 1960, 1962 [520A]

P. vaporalis Barnard and Ingram, new species, herein [310B, 317B]

P. tenuipes Chevreux, 1908, 1935.—Shulenberger and Barnard, 1976.—Barnard and Shulenberger, 1976 [422BA]

DISTRIBUTION.—Marine, cosmopolitan, bathy- and abyssopelagic, 706–5720 m, 5 species.

Key to the Species of Paralicella

Paralicella vaporalis, new species

FIGURES 22–25

ETYMOLOGY.—The species name is from the Latin vaporalis (of steam).

DIAGNOSIS.—Right lacinia mobilis well developed, broad, multitoothed and partially bifid; inner plate of maxilliped with spine(s) on each side of excavation; coxa 1 triangular, tapering, partially covered by coxa 2; coxa 2 lacking medial brush of setae or brush weak; palm of gnathopod 2 extremely oblique; article 2 of pereopod 7 rounded posteroventrally; epimeron 3 subquadrate at posteroventral corner; outer ramus of uropod 1 not shortened; article 2 on outer ramus of uropod 3 about 0.16 times as long as article 1.

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Female “t” 19.4 mm: Apparently blind, front part of head filled with dispersed glandular blots appressed to inside surface of head; lateral lobe bluntly mammilliform, antennal sinus moderately deep. Article 5 of antenna 2 as long as article 4. Epistome and upper lip weakly articulate, separated by notch from side view, neither dominant, upper lip broadly pyriform below.

Right incisor with blunt apicomedial and apicolateral tooth, distal margin with notch and hump, left incisor with middle hump and ragged margin; right lacinia mobilis well developed, flake-like, jaggedly serrate, much broader than long, composed of two appressed parts; left lacinia mobilis also much broader than long, better developed, almost evenly serrate apically; rakers numerous; molars of medium size, subconical, densely setulose, tapering to medium-sized diffuse apical region with weak triturative surface; palp article 1 short, article 2 well setose, article 3 short, clavate, with 3 A-setae and many D- and 6E-setae. Lower lip with blunt mandibular lobes, with gape between main lobes, inner lobes absent. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with beveled apical part bearing 4 setae, with 10+ small denticle-setae, medial margin with 16 setae, spines on outer plate 11; palps with 12 lateral setae, apices broad, multispinose and with numerous apicofacial setae. Inner plate of maxilla 2 much smaller than outer, facial setal row with about 20 setae. Mediofacial row of setae on inner plate of maxilla 2 about 21. Inner plate of maxilliped with 3 main apical spines divided into 2 sets, dactyl ordinary, evenly tapering, with inner subapical tooth, with 1 main apical nail and 3 accessory setules.

Dactyls of gnathopods 1–2 with inner subapical tooth. Dactyls of pereopods with weak nail, one strong inner and weak facial spinule; unlocking spines paired. Oostegites 2–5 moderately developed but asetose. Gills broad and unpleated, large on coxae 2–7,?each with medium thick conical accessory lobe (confirmed on gills 4–6 only, others too rotted for analysis on available material).

Epimeron 1 with 10 anteroventral setae and spines, epimeron 2 with 5 facial setae narrowly spread and 10 ventral setae, epimeron 3 with 1 facial and 6 ventral spines moderately spread. Each pleopod with 2 coupling hooks and 3–4 simple accessory spines, peduncles poorly setose, rami very long, subequal.

Peduncle of uropod 1 with basolateral row of 9 spines, apicolateral corner with large spine, other corner spines on uropods 1–2 small, all rami bearing 2 rows of spines (not all seen laterally); peduncle of uropod 3 weakly elongate, with 3 mid-ventrolateral spines. Each apex of telson strongly bifid, with 1–2 spines and setule, dorsum of each lobe with 2–4 sets of dorsal spines or spine pairs, most basal set near M.35.

FIGURE 22.—Paralicella vaporalis, new species, holotype female “t” 22.78 mm.

FIGURE 23.—Paralicella vaporalis, new species: unattributed figures = holotype female “t” 22.78 mm; u = female “u” 18.18 mm.

FIGURE 24.—Paralicella vaporalis, new species, holotype female “t” 22.78 mm.

FIGURE 25.—Paralicella vaporalis, new species, holotype female “t” 22.78 mm.

Other Material: Male “v”: Like female and therefore probably young, but oostegites absent, penes present.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Pereopod 3 enlarged more than pereopods 5–7; pereopod 4 similar to pereopod 3; pereopod 5 with oostegite anterior, next shaded area indicating fold of main gill, posterior shaded area indicating accessory lobe.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 195197, female “t” 22.78 mm.

TYPE LOCALITY.—SIO Cat. No. C5694, SIO Acc. No. BI68-45, STYX-7, MPE 68091 & 2, sta 5, Hess Guyot, 17°53′N, 174°14.8′W, 1–2 Sep 1968, 1740 m, free vehicle traps on R/V Agassiz.

MATERIAL.—The type locality, female “u” 18.18 mm (oostegites rudimentary). SIO Cat. No. C3697, SIO Acc. No. BI65–65, Jasper Seamount off Baja California, 30°23.2′N, 119°58.8W, 5 Sep 1965, 706 m, fish trap, R/V Agassiz, male “v” 20.02 mm.

RELATIONSHIP.—This species and P. similis differ from typical species of Paralicella in the reduced and tapering coxa 1 and P. vaporalis also is anomalous because of the large right lacinia mobilis. Paralicella vaporalis differs from P. tenuiipes in the unbeveled article 2 of pereopod 7, the presence of an extra leaf on the right lacinia mobilis, and in the different tooth pattern on the incisor. It differs from P. similis in the broader article 2 of pereopods 5–7 and the shape of epimeron 3; otherwise P. similis is similar to P. vaporalis in the reduced and tapering coxa 1. Our new species differs from P.fusiformis in the reduced and tapering coxa 1, the very oblique palm of gnathopod 1, and the greater density of spination on the medial margin of the outer plate on the maxilliped. And, finally, from P. caperesca our species differs in the reduced and tapering coxa 1, large right lacinia mobilis, much more oblique palm of gnathopod 2, and the high density of spination on the outer plate of the maxilliped.

DISTRIBUTION.—Pacific Ocean, from Hess Guyot to Jasper Seamount, 706–1740 m.

Discussion of the Valettiopsis Group

The remaining taxa to be described in this paper fall into a group resembling Valettiopsis, a genus heretofore considered to be of bathypelagic provenance. These taxa comprise the new genera Apotectonia, Diatectonia, Tectovalopsis, and Transtectonia. No specimens of Valettiopsis were collected in the vent areas. The new taxa also bear some resemblance to classic genera Alicella, Paralicella, and Eurythenes.

The following keys are very constrained in diversity but include genera of the Valettiopsis group, which is newly elaborated, and other commonly encountered and morphologically similar deep sea genera such as Alicella, Eurythenes, Paralicella, and Schisturella and its apomorph, Ventiella.

Keys to Certain Deep-Sea Genera of Lysianassoidea

KEY 1

KEY 2

KEY 3

KEY 4

Valettiopsis Holmes

Valettiopsis Holmes. 1908:494 [Valettiopsis dentatus Holmes. 1908, original designation].

DIAGNOSIS.—Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle. Labrum and epistome separate, labrum slightly dominant in size, blunt. Incisor widely toothed; left lacinia mobilis longer than broad, right variable (very short in type, elongate in other species), molar with large apical trituration surface; palp attached slightly distal to molar. Inner plate of maxilla 1 strongly setose (about 32) medially; palp biarticulate, large. Inner plate of maxilla 2 not smaller than outer plate, with strong mediofacial row of setae (about 27), with about twice as many setae as in Paralicella and Tectovalopsis, new genus. Inner and outer plates of maxilliped well developed, palp strongly exceeding outer plate, dactyl well developed, ordinary, tapering.

Coxa 1 strongly shortened and partly covered by coxa 2, tapering. Posteroventral lobe on coxa 4 weak or absent.

Gnathopod 1 elongate, strongly subchelate, palm almost transverse, article 3 slightly to greatly elongate, articles 5 and 6 subequal, dactyl small; article 6 of gnathopod 2 almost equal to article 5, both very elongate and linear, propodus subchelate. Pereopods 5–7 elongate, article 2 diverse in size and form.

Pleonite 4 carinate sharply (versus Paralicella). Only outer ramus of uropod 2 shortened. Inner ramus of uropod 2 without notch. Uropod 3 aequiramous, ordinary, peduncle ordinary, inner ramus not shortened, outer ramus 2–articulate. Telson elongate, deeply cleft.

VARIABLES.—Pleon and pereon carinate (V. multidentatus); propodus of gnathopod 2 expanded (V. macrodactylus).

REMOVAL.—Valettiopsis anacanthus Birstein and Vinogradov (1963) to Valettietta.

RELATIONSHIP.—Differing from Valettia in coxa 1 being shorter than coxa 2, the elongate rectangular coxa 2, and the fully setose inner plates of maxillae 1–2; in Valettia coxae 1–2 are both short together and the inner plates of the maxillae are setose mostly terminally.

Differing from Paralicella in the more elongate gnathopod 1, serrate incisor, smaller coxa 1 tapering distally, poorly developed posteroventral lobe on coxa 4, and carinate pleonite 4.

From Eurythenes in the more elongate coxa 1, serrate incisor, poorly developed lobe on coxa 4, facial row of setae on the inner plate of maxilla 2, and the unswollen article 1 of antenna 2.

From Tryphosella, Ambasia, Tmetonyx, and relatives in the densely setose maxillae 1–2.

From Aristias in the elongate, strongly subchelate gnathopod 1 with elongate article 3 and the better developed inner plates of the maxillipeds.

From Onesimoides in the reduced and tapering coxa 1, medially setose maxillae 1–2, elongate gnathopod 1 with elongate article 3, and the large inner ramus of uropod 3.

From Aristiopsis in the elongate gnathopod 1 with elongate, unlobate carpus and the multisetose maxillae 1–2.

See Valettietta (in context of world monograph).

SPECIES.

V. dentatus Holmes, 1908.—Gurjanova, 1962.—J.L. Barnard, 1967 [310B] macrodactylus Chevreux, 1909,1935.—Lincoln and Thurston, 1983 [240BA] multidentatus J.L. Barnard, 1961 [715B]

DISTRIBUTION.—Marine, demersal cosmopolitan, 183–4300 m, coming to baited traps, 3 species.

Apotectonia, new genus

ETYMOLOGY.—The genus name is from the Greek apo(after, away from) plus tecto (root of Tectovalopsis, new genus).

DIAGNOSIS.—Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle. Labrum and epistome separate, neither dominant in size, blunt. Incisor weakly toothed; left lacinia mobilis shorter than broad, right vestigial; molar large, conical, setulose, without tiny apical trituration surface, palp attached strongly distal to molar. Inner plate of maxilla 1 strongly setose medially (13), palp biarticulate, large. Inner plate of maxilla 2 much smaller than outer, with strong row of mediofacial setae (20, but number of setae in row about three–fourths that in Valettiopsis and Valettietta). Inner and outer plates of maxilliped well developed, inner beveled, palp strongly exceeding outer plate, dactyl well developed, with apical nail and several accessory setules.

Coxa 1 scarcely shortened, beveled, partly covered by coxa 2. Posteroventral lobe on coxa 4 of medium size.

Gnathopod 1 elongate, simple, articles 5 and 6 subequal, article 3 greatly elongate; dactyl small; article 6 of gnathopod 2 slightly shorter than article 5, both very elongate and linear, propodus subchelate. Pereopods 5–7 elongate.

Pleonite 4 complexly carinate (versus Alicella and Paralicella). Only outer ramus of uropod 2 shortened. Inner ramus of uropod 2 without notch. Uropod 3 aequiramous, ordinary, peduncle ordinary, inner ramus not shortened, outer ramus 2–articulate. Telson elongate, deeply cleft.

TYPE SPECIES.—Apotectonia heterostegos, new species.

RELATIONSHIP.—Differing from Valettiopsis and Valettietta in the same way as Tectovalopsis, new genus. Closely related to Tectovalopsis and Transtectonia, new genus, but gnathopod 1 simple and dorsal process of urosomite 1 complexly toothed. These facts alone should not necessarily be used to distinguish a new genus except for the facts that various other minor characters prevent assignment to the other genera.

Differing from Transtectonia in some of the same characters as in Tectovalopsis, except labrum broad as in Transtectonia, though much more shortened and not weakly excavate below.

Like Tectovalopsis in broad palp of maxilla 1 bearing outer basal setae and small inner plate of maxilla 2 but differing in the vestigial right lacinia mobilis, beveled inner plate of maxilliped, unreduced coxa 1, and in a more minor way the lack of basal setae on article 2 of the mandibular palp.

Like Transtectonia in the vestigial right lacinia mobilis and beveled inner plate of the maxilliped but differing in the broad palp of maxilla 1 bearing basolateral setae, beveled coxa 1, small unlocking spines of pereopods 3–4, diverse plates of maxilla 2, and small, broader than long, left lacinia mobilis.

Apotectonia is unusual in the disproportionate antennae, the second antenna being longer than the first.

Differing from Alicella in the unproduced epistome, head with antennal sinus; incisors of mandibles broad relative to body of mandible; left lacinia mobilis tiny (versus large); inner plate of maxilla 1 narrow (versus broad); apex of palp on maxilla 1 strongly expanded (versus poorly expanded); apex of inner plate on maxilliped lacking spines in middle; pereopods 5–7 elongate (versus short); article 2 of pereopods 5–7 with evenly rounded–sloping posterior lobes (versus ventrally truncate); epimeron 1 with posteroventral tooth; urosomite 4 with large, elevated pair of dorsal cusps (versus smooth dorsally); outer ramus of uropod 1 as long as inner ramus.

Apotectonia heterostegos, new species

FIGURES 26–28

ETYMOLOGY.—The species name is from the Greek heteros (different) plus stegos (cover, sheath (plate)), referring to the unusual number of oostegites (5) in this species.

DIAGNOSIS (for comparison to Tectovalopsis).—Antennae not especially short but antenna 2 longer than 1. Coxae 1–2 not of broadened form, coxa 1 scarcely shortened, beveled, tapering; coxa 2 scarcely adz–shaped; palm of gnathopod 1 absent; palm of gnathopod 2 oblique; accessory gills well developed, slender, gill of pereopod 6 with one accessory lobe; ventral spines on epimeron 2 sparse and poorly spread, adults without facial spine; tooth on epimeron 2 strong, epimeron 3 with weak tooth; dorsal tooth on pleonite 3 slightly developed as overhang; dorsal tooth on urosomite 2 small; middle keel on urosomite 3 obsolescent or absent; apicolateral spine on peduncle of uropod 2 not larger than other spines; inner ramus of uropod 3 as long as outer; maturation not delayed.

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Female “g” 18.3 mm: As in illustrations; primary flagellum of antenna 1 with large and small spines in following formula commencing with article 1 (L = large, S = small, M = medium, 0= absent): left flagellum, L,L,L,L,L,M,M,S,M,0,S,S,S,0,S,S,0,S,0,0,S,S,0,S, 0,0, S,0,S, and 11 zeros (total 36 articles); right flagellum, L,L,L,L,S,L,L,S,L,L,S,S,0,S,S,0,0,0,S,0,S,0,0,S,0,S, and 12 zeros (34 articles); aesthetascs on right flagellum per article, 6 rows, 2 rows, 2 rows, 1 row, 1,1,1,1,1, each in rows, and absent on articles 10–34.

Prebuccal mass with epistome and upper lip each produced as rounded anterior lobe. Right and left incisors with inner notch–tooth and plain tooth respectively, with 3 and 2 minute outer teeth respectively, right lacinia mobilis tiny, bifid, left scarcely larger and multitoothed, rakers about 14, molars long, slender, pointed, pubescent; palp article 3 with ADE setae.

Right outer plate of maxilla 1 with 10 spines, left with 11; palps symmetrical.

Coxa 1 beveled anteroventrally; coxae 1–3 with 5,4,1 mediofacial setae respectively. Unplaited gills, each with minor secondary sausage–shaped lobe present on coxae 2–7; oostegites narrow, poorly developed, on coxae 1–5.

Gnathopod 2 lacking pubescence; article 2 well setose anteriorly (not illustrated), posterior margin with only one main setal bundle in middle.

Pereopod 4 stouter but not longer than pereopod 3. Pereopod 6 longest.

Pleopods large, rami about 1.3 times as long as peduncle, peduncles naked except for one apicolateral spine on pleopods 2–3, outer rami with 25 or 24 (pleopod 3) articles, inner with 21; coupling hooks 2 with 3 unhooked accessory spines each.

Ventral spine formula on epimera 1–3 respectively = 1–3–4. Urosomite 5 with weak dorsal flange appearing sharp from side view; urosomite 6 with dorsal spine.

Apices of rami on uropods with small apical setule emerging from mostly amalgamated inner nail. Apices of telsonic lobes notched, each with small spine, each side of telson with subbasal spine, each dorsum with small middle spine.

Other Material: Female “k” 17.4 mm: Oostegites large, slender, strap–shaped, fully setose.

Female “m” 11.73 mm: Oostegites forming tiny buds.

Juvenile “h” 12.4 mm: Slightly larger than female “m” but brood buds absent.

Juvenile “p” 8.31 mm: Accessory flagellum 4–articulate; inner plate of maxilliped with 4 facial setae (versus 4 for illustrated adult); accessory lobes of gills fully developed; article 2 of pereopod 7 with 7 posterior setule notches (versus 10); posteroventral tooth on epimeron 1 rudimentary, spine counts on epimera 1–3 = 1–2–3; pleonite 1 with 1 ventral spine; spine counts on uropods (number = spine, s = seta, b = bud of spine), uropod 1 peduncle basofacial = 1–1–1 (latter at M.40), dorsolateral = 6, medial = 6, outer ramus lateral = 4, medial = 4, inner ramus lateral = 3, medial = 4; uropod 2 peduncle dorsolateral = 2, medial = 1, outer ramus lateral = 4, medial = 1, inner ramus lateral = 3, medial = 4; uropod 3 peduncle dorsolateral = 1, dorsal = 0, ventral = 1, medial = 1, outer ramus lateral = 1–1–2, medial = b–1–1, inner ramus lateral = 1–1+s, medial = basal spine, then apically b–b-b-b- 1+s–1+s–1.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Sets of similarly magnified drawings are (1) coxae 1–4,(2) pereopods 5–7,(3) uropod 3 and telson, (4) uropods 1–2 (smaller than 3). Maxilla 2 magnified less than maxilla 1. Lines of extension from antennae showing total length.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 195149, female “g” 18.3 mm (illustrated).

TYPE LOCALITY.—Station 891, Galapagos Vents, Garden of Eden, 00°47.7′N, 86°07.7′W, 16 Feb 1979, 2488 m, collected by Scripps Institution of Oceanography (hereafter SIO), amphipod trap.

FIGURE 26.—Apotectonia heterostegos, new species: unattributed figures = holotype, female “g”; k = female “k” 17.4 mm.

FIGURE 27.—Apotectonia heterostegos, new species, holotype, female “g.”

FIGURE 28.—Apotectonia heterostegos, new species, holotype, female “g”; m = female “m,” 11.73 mm.

MATERIAL.—Type locality, juvenile “h” 12.4 mm, female “i” 15.4 mm, juvenile “j” 5.31 mm, female “k” 17.4 mm (illustrated), female “m” 11.73 mm, juvenile “n”: 7.85 mm (total in sample, 317 specimens). SIO Galapagos 993, Galapagos Vents, 00°47.0′N, 86°08.0′W, 2518 m, 10 Dec 1979, subsample unspecifie, juvenile “p” 8.31 mm. WHOI Dive 984 00°48.0′N, 86°13.0′W, 2451 m, 01 Dec 1979, Panel 10, Rose Garden, Turner/Copley, 1 large and 1 small specimens.

REMARKS.—The presence of an oostegite on coxa 1 is probably the first record of this occurring in gammaridean Amphipoda. This is consistent on adult females.

RELATIONSHIP.—The diagnosis compares this species to Alicella gigantea. The most conspicuous difference of A. heterostegos is the elevation of urosomite 1 into a pair of closely connected cusps. The shape of article 2 on pereopods 5–7 is also significant, these being rounded-attenuate, rather than truncate. The basal spines on the primary flagellum of antenna 1 are also conspicuous.

DISTRIBUTION.—Galapagos Vents, 2451–2518 m.

Diatectonia, new genus

ETYMOLOGY.—The genus name is from the Greek dia(between) plus tekos (molten).

DIAGNOSIS.—Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle. Labrum and epistome separate, neither dominant in size, blunt. Incisor weakly toothed (4 teeth each side); left and right laciniae mobiles shorter than broad, right very small; molar large, conical, setulose, with tiny apical trituration surface; palp attached strongly distal to molar. Inner plate of maxilla 1 strongly setose medially (19), palp biarticulate, large. Inner plate of maxilla 2 slightly smaller than outer, with strong row of mediofacial setae (27), number of setae in row like that in Valettiopsis and Valettietta. Inner and outer plates of maxilliped well developed, inner scarcely beveled, with 4 widely spread jewel-spines; palp strongly exceeding outer plate, dactyl well developed, ordinary, with 1 apical nail and several accessory setules.

Coxa 1 strongly shortened and partly covered by coxa 2, tapering. Posteroventral lobe on coxa 4 strong.

Gnathopod 1 elongate, strongly subchelate, palm oblique, article 6 shorter than 5, article 3 greatly elongate; dactyl small; article 6 of gnathopod 2 shorter than article 5, both very elongate and linear, propodus barely subchelate. Pereopods 5–7 elongate.

Pleonite 4 carinate (versus Paralicella), with 3 teeth (versus Tectovalopsis, new genus). Only outer ramus of uropod 2 shortened. Inner ramus of uropod 2 without notch. Uropod 3 aequiramous, ordinary, peduncle ordinary, inner ramus not shortened, outer ramus 2-articulate. Telson elongate, deeply cleft.

TYPE SPECIES.—Diatectonia typhodes, new species, here designated.

RELATIONSHIP.—Differing from Valettiopsis in the poorly toothed incisor, evanescent right lacinia mobilis, somewhat more distally placed palp of the mandible, reduction of the triturative surface on the molar to a very small plaque or button, the many fewer medial setae on the inner plate of maxilla 1 (but setae on maxilla 2 are alike), the wider spread of 4 (versus 3) spines on the apex of the inner plate on the maxilliped, the elongate gnathopods, the more strongly oblique palm of gnathopod 1 and the slightly more oblique palm of gnathopod 2 (variable), larger lobe of coxa 4, and trifid condition of the dorsal process on urosomite 1. The diagnoses of the genera show other distinctions.

The reduction or loss of incisorial cuspidation complicates classification within the Lysianassoidea because colleagues have suggested that lysianassoids with incisorial teeth belong in a family group remote from lysianassoids. Because this occurs in a genus with reduced coxa 1, which cannot be a plesiomorph, the precise definition of such a family group will be difficult.

The similar Valettietta Lincoln and Thurston (1983) differs from our genus in the more strongly toothed incisor, larger right lacinia mobilis, strongly triturative molar, narrow palp of maxilla 1, different inner plate of the maxilliped, longer coxa 1, shorter gnathopod 1, relative equality in length of articles 5–6 on gnathopod 2 and the bluntness and singularity of the dorsal tooth of urosomite 1.

Differing from its very close relative, Tectovalopsis in the multifid keel of urosomite 1, the many more setae in the oblique facial row on the inner plate of maxilla 2, much longer gnathopod 1 and the absence of a tooth on epimeron 3.

Differing from Transtectonia, new genus, in the shortened coxa 1, fully setose inner plates of maxillae 1–2, broad palp of maxilla 1, broad left lacinia mobilis, and broad spread of spines on the inner plate of the maxilliped.

Differing from Apotectonia in the subchelate gnathopod 1, larger antenna 2, more strongly toothed incisors, large left lacinia mobilis, presence of right lacinia mobilis, slight trituration of and thicker molar, much more strongly setose inner plate of maxillae 1–2, the broad spread of spines on the inner plate of the maxilliped, and the elongate gnathopod 1. Diatectonia and Apotectonia are similar in the multidentation of the dorsal process on urosomite 1.

Differing from Paralicella in the presence of a sharp tooth on urosomite 1, the stronger toothing of the mandibular incisors, broader left lacinia mobilis, slightly triturative molar, presence of many more setae on the inner plates of maxillae 1–2, the lack of an apical excavation on the inner plate of the maxilliped (with no separation between spines), and the more elongate gnathopod 1.

There is intermixture of characters in this genus that combines features of Tectovalopsis and Valettiopsis on the one propodus and Apotectonia and Tectovalopsis on the other propodus. Besides the characters noted above in the individual comparisons, Diatectonia differs from all three genera in the wide spread of the spines on the inner plate of the maxilliped. Diatectonia appears to stand near the Valettiopsis morphology in retaining the apomoprhic multisetose maxillae, and slightly better toothing on mandibular incisors, but like Tectovalopsis and Apotectonia has lost integrity in molar and right lacinia mobilis.

SPECIES.

D. typhodes, new species [317B].

DISTRIBUTION.—Marine demersal or epibenthic, Hamilton Guyot, 1790 m.

Diatectonia typhodes, new species

FIGURES 29–32

ETYMOLOGY.—The species name is from the Greek typhodes (smoky).

DIAGNOSIS (in sense of Tectovalopsis).—Coxa 2 of broadened form, coxa 1 shortened and subtruncate, evenly tapering; coxa 2 distinctly adz-shaped; palm of gnathopod 1 oblique, well developed; palm of gnathopod 2 oblique; accessory gills short and thick, gill of pereopod 6 with one accessory lobe; ventral spines on epimeron 2 sparse and widely spread, adults with no facial spine; tooth on epimera 2–3 evanescent; dorsal tooth on pleonite 3 absent; dorsal tooth on urosomite 1 trifid; dorsal tooth on urosomite 2 obsolescent; middle keel on urosomite 3 obsolescent or absent; apicolateral spine on peduncle of uropod 2 not larger than other spines; inner ramus of uropod 3 as long as outer; maturation [unknown].

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Female “w” 28.59 mm: Apparently blind, head filled with dispersed glandular blots appressed to inside surface of head; lateral lobe truncate, antennal sinus shallow. Epistome and upper lip weakly articulate, separated by notch from side view, neither dominant, upper lip pyriform below.

Right incisor with 3 medium sharp apicomedial teeth, distal margin barely crenulate laterally, then with large outer tooth, left incisor similar but only one inner tooth large, 2–3 other evanescent; right lacinia mobilis small, flake-like, jaggedly serrate, much broader than long; left lacinia mobilis also much broader than long, very well developed, almost evenly serrate apically; rakers numerous (13 large right, 15 large left, each side with 3 small rakers, many fimbriate interrakers); molars medium to large, subconical, densely setulose, tapering to small apical plaque with weak triturative surface; palp article 1 short, article 2 well setose, article 3 short, thinly clavate, with 3 A-setae and many D and E setae. Lower lip with subsharp mandibular lobes, with gape between main lobes, inner lobes absent. Inner plate of maxilla 1 heavily setose medially (19), with tiny denticle-setules on apicoposterior ridge, very broad aboral part extending behind outer plate; spines on outer plate 11, no spine small and inserted on oral face; palps with several lateral setae, apices broad, multispinose and with numerous apicofacial setae. Inner plate of maxilla 2 distinctly smaller than outer (and thus differing from Valettiopsis and Valettietta)), facial setal row with about 27 setae (and thus similar to the 2 genera mentioned). Inner plate of maxilliped with 4 main apical spines widely spread, dactyl long, evenly tapering, with main apical nail and several accessory setules.

Dactyls of gnathopods 1–2 without inner acclivity and tooth, with slit and 2 heavy setule-spinules and 0–2 setules. Dactyls of pereopods with weak nail, one weak inner and weak facial setule; unlocking spines paired. Oostegites slender, strongly setose, present on coxae 2–5. Gills broad and unpleated, large on coxae 2–7, each with medium thick conical accessory lobe except lobe small and rounded on coxa 7.

Epimeron 1 with 5 anteroventral spines, epimeron 2 with 5 spines widely spread, without facial spines, epimeron 3 with 6 spines widely spread, all spines placed singly. Each pleopod with 2 coupling hooks and 2–3 simple accessories, peduncles of pleopods 1–3 respectively with 4 medium, 5 tiny and 3 large stiff vertically aligned marginal spines each, rami very long, inner slightly the shorter, outer and inner rami generally with 31 and 27 articles respectively.

Peduncle of uropod 1 with basolateral row of spines, apicolateral corner with large spine, other corner spines on uropods 1–2 small, all rami bearing 2 rows of spines (not all seen laterally); peduncle of uropod 3 weakly elongate, with subapical ventrolateral spine. Each apex of telson barely bifid, with one spine and setule, dorsum of each lobe with 2–3 sets of dorsal spines, basolateral set of these at M.40 bearing 2 inner setules (presumably the normal basolateral setule pair found in most amphipods).

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Pereopod 3 more enlarged than pereopods 5–7. Antenna 2 much longer than antenna 1 but flagellum broken and missing. Maxilla 1 is magnified more than maxilla 2 and both are magnified more than the maxilliped; article 3 of the maxillipedal palp is not fully flattened. One row of medial spines on inner ramus of uropod 2 not seen from lateral view.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 235006, female “w” 28.5 mm. Unique.

TYPE LOCALITY.—SIO Cat No. C5697, Acc. No. BI68-30, STYX-7 MPE 68094 sta 4, Hamilton Guyot, 18°32′N, 179°18′W, 4, 5 Sep 1968, ∼1790 m, free vehicle trap, R/V Agassiz, unique holotype.

DISTRIBUTION.—Hamilton Guyot, 1790 m.

Tectovalopsis, new genus

ETYMOLOGY.—The genus name is from the Greek tekos(molten) plus roots of Valettiopsis, a similar genus.

DIAGNOSIS.—Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle. Labrum and epistome separate, neither dominant in size, blunt. Incisor weakly toothed or smooth; left and right laciniae mobiles shorter than broad; molar large, conical, setulose, with tiny apical trituration surface; palp attached strongly distal to molar. Inner plate of maxilla 1 strongly setose medially (about 15); palp biarticulate, large. Inner plate of maxilla 2 slightly smaller than outer, with strong row of mediofacial setae (about 11), but number of setae in row about half that in Valettiopsis and Valettietta. Inner and outer plates of maxilliped well developed, inner not beveled, with 3 spines grouped medially, apicolateral margin bulging, palp strongly exceeding outer plate, dactyl well developed, either ordinary or with inner acclivity and tooth, 2 apical nails and several accessory setules.

Coxa 1 strongly shortened and partly covered by coxa 2, tapering or weakly truncate. Posteroventral lobe on coxa 4 strong.

Gnathopod 1 elongate, strongly subchelate, palm oblique, articles 5 and 6 subequal, article 3 greatly elongate; dactyl small; article 6 of gnathopod 2 shorter than article 5, both very elongate and linear, propodus subchelate. Pereopods 5–7 elongate.

FIGURE 29.—Diatectonia typhodes, new species, holotype female “w” 28.5 mm [3 dots at end of scale bar = broken apex not figured].

FIGURE 30.—Diatectonia typhodes, new species, holotype female “w” 28.5 mm.

Pleonite 4 carinate (versus Paralicella). Only outer ramus of uropod 2 shortened. Inner ramus of uropod 2 without notch. Uropod 3 aequiramous, ordinary, peduncle ordinary, inner ramus not shortened, outer ramus 2-articulate. Telson elongate, deeply cleft.

TYPE SPECIES.—Tectovalopsis wegeneri, new species.

RELATIONSHIP.—Differing from Valettiopsis in the poorly toothed or smooth incisor, elongate left lacinia mobilis, somewhat more distally placed palp of the mandible, reduction of the triturative surface on the molar to a very small plaque or button, the more strongly oblique palm of gnathopod 1, and the slightly more oblique palm of gnathopod 2 (variable). The diagnoses of the genera show other distinctions.

FIGURE 31.—Diatectonia typhodes, new species, holotype female “w” 28.5 mm.

See also comments on reduction or loss of incisorial cuspidation under discussion of Diatectonia.

FIGURE 32.—Diatectonia typhodes, new species, holotype female “w” 28.5 mm.

The similar Valettietta Lincoln and Thurston (1983) differs from our genus in the toothed incisor, ordinary left lacinia mobilis, longer coxa 1, relative equality in length of articles 5–6 on gnathopod 2, and the bluntness of the dorsal tooth of urosomite 1.

There is intermixture of characters in this genus that combines features of Paralicella and Valettiopsis. The incisors, laciniae mobiles, molar, inner plate of maxilla 2, dactyl of maxilliped, coxa 4, and gnathopods are much closer to Paralicella than to Valettiopsis, whereas the short coxa 1, uropods 1–2, and sharp tooth of urosomite 1 resemble those in Valettiopsis. In contrast to either genus, article 2 of pereopods 5–7 is even and not diverse in size and form, a character we assume is plesiomorphic. Any suggestion that one or the other of the genera Paralicella and Valettiopsis could be directly ancestral to the other with transition traced through Tectovalopsis is obviated by the short coxa 1 of Valettiopsis and Tectovalopsis, which is apomorphic, while the slightly reduced inner plate of maxilla 2 and unusual dactyl of the maxilliped in Paralicella and Tectovalopsis are also apomorphic. The reduced triturative surface on the molar of Paralicella and Tectovalopsis is apomorphic. The reduced lobe on coxa 4 of Valettiopsis is apomorphic. The reduced outer ramus of uropod 1 in Paralicella is apomorphic. One presumes the sharpness of the dorsal tooth on urosomite 1 is apomorphic in Valettiopsis and Tectovalopsis, but such judgment is less secure than in the other characters. The laciniae mobiles seem to run in a sequence of increasing apomorphy from Valettiopsis to Paralicella to Tectovalopsis. The dactyl of the maxilliped appears to be more apomorphic in Tectovalopsis than in Paralicella, both of which seem to be more apomorphic than Valettiopsis and Valettietta. To supply an evolutionary tree, one must therefore hypothesize additional plesiomorphic ancestors with earlier branching than demonstrated in these 3 genera. The evenness of article 2 on pereopods 5–7 in Tectovalopsis is also distinctive from that of Paralicella and Valettiopsis. This evenness of shape is replicated in Valettietta but in that genus there is considerable size distinction among the pereopods mentioned.

SPECIES.

T. diabolus, new species [504A]

T. fusilus, new species [309A]

T. nebulosus, new species [310B]

T. regelatus, new species [317B]

T. wegeneri, new species [504A].

DISTRIBUTION.—Marine demersal or epibenthic, North Pacific at 13°N Vents, Hess Guyot, Jasper Seamount, and off southwest Mexico, 706–2884 m, 5 species.

Keys to the Species of Diatectonia and Tectovalopsis, new genera

KEY 1

KEY 2

KEY 3

Tectovalopsis wegeneri, new species

FIGURES 33–35

ETYMOLOGY.—This species is named for A.L. Wegener, 1880–1930.

DIAGNOSIS.—Coxae 1–2 not of broadened form, coxa 1 shortened and subtruncate, not evenly tapering; coxa 2 not distinctly adz-shaped; palm of gnathopod 1 weakly oblique, well developed; palm of gnathopod 2 slightly oblique; accessory gills short and thick, gill of pereopod 6 with one accessory lobe; ventral spines on epimeron 2 numerous and widely spread, adults with 1+ facial spine; tooth on epimera 2–3 strong; dorsal tooth on pleonite 3 absent; dorsal tooth on urosomite 2 obsolescent; middle keel on urosomite 3 obsolescent or absent; apicolateral spine on peduncle of uropod 2 not larger than other spines; inner ramus of uropod 3 as long as outer; maturation delayed.

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Female “u” 33.9 mm: Apparently blind, head filled with dispersed glandular blots appressed to inside surface of head; lateral lobe bluntly mammilliform, antennal sinus shallow. Epistome and upper lip weakly articulate, separated by notch from side view, neither dominant, upper lip weakly pointed below.

Right incisor with small sharp apicomedial tooth, distal margin barely crenulate laterally, left incisor almost glass-smooth; right lacinia mobilis very small, flake-like, jaggedly serrate, much broader than long; left lacinia mobilis also much broader than long, better developed, almost evenly serrate apically; rakers numerous; molars medium to large, subconical, densely setulose, tapering to tiny apical plaque with weak triturative surface (much less developed than in species to follow); palp article 1 short, article 2 well setose, article 3 short, clavate, with about 4 A-setae and many D- and E-setae. Lower lip with subsharp mandibular lobes, with gape between main lobes, inner lobes absent Inner plate of maxilla 1 with narrow oral part heavily setose medially, with small denticle-spines on apicolateral edge, very broad aboral part extending behind outer plate; spines on outer plate 11, one spine small and inserted on oral face; palps with several lateral setae, apices broad, multispinose, and with numerous apicofacial setae. Inner plate of maxilla 2 distinctly smaller than outer (and thus differing from Valettiopsis and Valettietta), facial setal row with about 11 setae (and thus much less dense than in 2 genera mentioned). Inner plate of maxilliped with 3 main apical spines, dactyl short, not evenly tapering, with inner apical tooth guarding 2 main apical nails and several accessory setules.

Dactyls of gnathopods 1–2 with inner acclivity and tooth. Dactyls of pereopods with weak nail, one weak inner and weak facial setule; unlocking spines paired. Oostegites slender, strongly setose, present on coxae 2–6. Gills broad and unpleated, large on coxae 2–7, each with medium thick conical accessory lobe except lobe small on coxa 7.

Epimeron 1 with 3 anteroventral spines, epimeron 2 with 6 spines widely spread, with 2 facial spines, epimeron 3 with 6 spines widely spread, all spines placed singly. Each pleopod with 2 coupling hooks and 3 simple accessories, peduncles poorly setose or asetose, rami very long, subequal, outer and inner rami generally with 33 and 29 articles respectively.

Peduncle of uropod 1 with basolateral row of spines, apicolateral corner with large spine, other corner spines on uropods 1–2 small, all rami bearing 2 rows of spines (not all seen laterally); peduncle of uropod 3 weakly elongate, with mid-ventrolateral spine. Each apex of telson barely bifid, with one spine and setule, dorsum of each lobe with 3 sets of dorsal spines, also with basolateral set at M.44 opposite dorsobasal set, basolateral set of 1 bearing 2 inner setules (presumably the normal basolateral setule pair found in most amphipods).

Other Material: Female “v”: Spine formula on epimera 1–3 = 3–5–6. Coxa 1 less truncate than in holotype. Oostegites rudimentary, lacking setae.

Male “w” 26.6 mm: Like female holotype, but because smaller, coxa 1 slightly less truncate; antennae 1–2 thicker than in female, conjoint base of primary flagellum on antenna 1 more elongate. Spine formula on epimera 1–3 same as female “v.”

FIGURE 33.—Tectovalopsis wegeneri, new species: unattributed figures = holotype, female “u” 33.9 mm; “w” 26.6 mm; f = Tectovalopsis nebulosus, new species, female “f” 21.4 mm.

FIGURE 34.—Tectovalopsis wegeneri, new species: unattributed figures = holotype, female “u” 33.9 mm; f = Tectovalopsis nebulosus, new species, female “f” 21.4 mm; e = Tectovalopsis diabolus, new species, juvenile “e” 11.8 mm.

FIGURE 35.—Tectovalopsis wegeneri, new species: unattributed figures = holotype, female “u” 33.9 mm; t = Tectovalopsis diabolus, new species, holotype, female “t” 19.1 mm.

Juveniles “b” and “d”: Spine formula on epimera 1–3 = 1–2–3 and 1–2–6.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—In figures of the holotype the upper and lower lips are magnified equally; maxilla 1 is magnified more than maxilla 2 and both are magnified more than the maxilliped; one outer plate of maxilla 1 is magnified more than the other and the outer face setules are omitted; article 3 of the maxillipedal palp is not flattened. One row of medial spines on inner ramus of uropod 2 not seen from lateral view.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 195199, female “u” 33.9 mm.

TYPE LOCALITY.—Biocyarise 84-38, 12°48.8′N, 103°56.8′W, 2635 m, 15 Mar 1984, basket with Alvinella, aspirator. Biocyarise 84-39, 12°48.6′N, 103°56.7′W, 2635 m, 16 Mar 1985, aspirator, 1 specimen.

MATERIAL.—Type locality, female “v” 29.4 mm, male “w” 26.6 mm, juvenile “x” 21.0 mm, juvenile “b” 20.6 mm, juvenile “c” 15.0 mm, juvenile “d” 14.2 mm.

RELATIONSHIP.—See keys above and species to follow.

DISTRIBUTION.—East Pacific, 13°N Vents, 2635 m.

Tectovalopsis regelatus, new species

FIGURES 36–38 (part)

DAMAGE.—Unique specimen missing most information on uropod 3 and telson and left uropods 1–2.

ETYMOLOGY.—The species name is from the Latin regelatus (thaw).

DIAGNOSIS.—Coxae 1–2 not of broadened form, coxa 1 shortened but rounded apically, subconical, strongly tapering; coxa 2 not distinctly adz-shaped; palm of gnathopod 1 strongly oblique, moderately developed; palm of gnathopod 2 strongly oblique; accessory gills short and thick, gill of pereopods 5–6 with one accessory lobe; ventral spines on epimeron 2 sparse and widely spread, occurring in singlets, adults with 2 facial spines; tooth on epimera 2–3 strong; dorsal tooth on pleonite 3 present; dorsal tooth on urosomite 2 absent; middle keel on urosomite 3 obsolescent; apicolateral spine on peduncle of uropod 2 not larger than other spines; [? inner ramus of uropod 3 shorter than outer; ? maturation ordinary].

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Male “n” 19.4 mm: Apparently blind, head filled with dispersed glandular blots appressed to inside surface of head; lateral lobe bluntly mammilliform, antennal sinus shallow. Article 5 of antenna 2 slightly longer than article 4. Epistome and upper lip weakly articulate, separated by notch from side view, neither dominant, upper lip broadly rounded below.

Right incisor with sharp apicomedial and apicolateral tooth, distal margin smooth, left incisor almost glass-smooth; right lacinia mobilis well developed, flake-like, jaggedly serrate, much broader than long, composed of two appressed parts; left lacinia mobilis also much broader than long, better developed, almost evenly serrate apically; rakers numerous; molars medium to large, subconical, densely setulose, tapering to medium sized diffuse apical region with weak triturative surface (much better developed than in type species); palp article 1 short, article 2 poorly setose except apically, apical row with 10 (right) to 12 (left) setae, remainder of article with 3 medial setae, article 3 short, clavate, with 3 A-setae and many D- and 6E-setae. Lower lip with blunt mandibular lobes, with gape between main lobes, inner lobes absent. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with narrow oral part heavily setose (13 setae) medially, with 4 small denticle-spines on apicolateral edge, very broad aboral part extending behind outer plate; spines on outer plate 11, one spine small and inserted on oral face; palps with 2 lateral setae, apices broad, multispinose and with numerous apicofacial setae (elements slightly longer than in type species). Inner plate of maxilla 2 not much smaller than outer (and thus scarcely differing from Valettiopsis and Valettietta), facial setal row with about 10 setae (and thus much less dense than in 2 genera mentioned). Inner plate of maxilliped with 3 main apical spines (but one side with 4), dactyl short, evenly tapering, without inner apical tooth but with 2 main apical nails, 3 subsidiary nails and 2 accessory setules.

Dactyls of gnathopods 1–2 with inner acclivity and tooth. Dactyls of pereopods with weak nail, one weak inner and weak facial setule; unlocking spines paired. Oostegites [unknown]. Gills broad and unpleated, large on coxae 2–7, each with medium thick conical accessory lobe.

Epimeron 1 with 1 anteroventral spine, epimeron 2 with 2 spines widely spread, epimeron 3 with 6 spines narrowly spread and crammed anteriorly. Each pleopod with 4 coupling hooks and 1 simple accessory, peduncles poorly setose, rami very long, subequal, outer and inner rami generally with 24 and 23 articles (23 on pleopods 2–3) and inner rami with 21–22–19 articles respectively.

Peduncle of uropod 1 with basolateral row of 6 spines, apicolateral corner with large spine, other corner spines on uropods 1–2 small, all rami bearing 2 rows of spines (not all seen laterally); peduncle of uropod 3 weakly elongate, with mid-ventrolateral spine. [? Each apex of telson barely bifid, with xxx-x spines and setule, dorsum of each lobe with x sets of dorsal spines, most basal set near M. xx].

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Following items not illustrated and as in T. wegeneri: prebuccal (except as described), labium, mandibles and palps (except as figured), maxillae 1–2 (except as figured), maxilliped (except inner plate and dactyl as figured), and pereopods 3–4. Coxa 4 not flattened on view of coxae 1–4 together (see separate flattened version). Spine or seta counts on appendages not illustrated: Mandibular palp article 3 = 3A, many D, 6E; inner plate of maxilla 1 with 13 setae and 4 apicolateral spines.

OTHER DIFFERENCES FROM TYPE SPECIES.—Antennae shorter, first antenna 40 percent and second antenna 45 percent as long as body; accessory flagellum with 6 articles; shape of maxilla 2 distinctive (see illustrtaion); inner plate of maxilliped with main spines borne on extension (illustration); posteroventral setae of coxae 1–3 in groups; article 2 of pereopods 5–7 slightly broader (illustrated).

FIGURE 36.—Tectovalopsis regelatus, new species, holotype, male “n” 19.4 mm.

FIGURE 37.—Tectovalopsis regelatus, new species, holotype, male “n” 19.4 mm.

FIGURE 38.—Upper, Tectovalopsis regelatus, new species, holotype, male “n” 19.4 mm. Lower, Tectovalopsis nebulosus, new species: y = holotype, female “y” 23.4 mm; f = female “f” 21.4 mm; m = male m, 23.5 mm.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 235000, male “n” 19.4 mm (illustrated).

TYPE LOCALITY.—SIO Cat no. C5693, Acc. No. BI 68-45, R/V Agassiz Cruise STYX-7, MPE 68091 & 2, Sta. 5, Hess Guyot, 17°53′N, 174°14.8′W, 1–2 Sep 1968, 1740 m, free vehicle trap.

MATERIAL.—Unique.

RELATIONSHIP.—This species differs from T. wegeneri in (1) the reversal in dominance of articles 4–5 on antenna 2, article 5 being the longer; (2) larger laciniae mobiles; (3) stronger triturative surface on the molar; (4) slightly longer armaments on the maxillary palps; (5) the more obtuse outer plate of maxilla 2; (6) the extended margin on the inner plate of the maxilliped; (7) the more tapering coxa 1; (8) the doubled armament sets on coxae 1–3; (9) the shorter palm of gnathopod 1 with more strongly overlapping dactyl; (10) the differing spine pattern on the palms of the gnathopods; (11) relatively shorter carpus of gnathopod 2; (12) thicker accessory lobes on the gills; (13) anteriorly crammed spines on epimeron 2; (14) sparsity of spines on epimeron 3 (15) more numerous hooked coupling spines on the pleopods; (16) the presence of a dorsal tooth on pleonite 3; and (17) the large distolateral projection on the peduncle of uropod 1.

This species differs from T. fusilus, new species, in items cited above: 2,3,5,6,7,10,13,14,16, and 17. In addition gnathopod 2 is stouter in T. regelatus.

This species lacks the characters found in T. nebulosus, new species, and T. diabolus, new species, such as keel on urosomite 3, incisorial teeth, and adz-shaped coxa 2.

DISTRIBUTION.—Hess Guyot, 1740 m.

Tectovalopsis nebulosus, new species

FIGURES 33, 34, 38, 39 (part)

ETYMOLOGY.—The species name is from the Latin nebulosus (misty).

DIAGNOSIS.—Coxae 1–2 not of broadened form, coxa 1 shortened and tapering; coxa 2 distinctly adz-shaped in terminal adult, less so in juveniles; palm of gnathopod 1 weakly oblique, well developed; palm of gnathopod 2 strongly oblique; accessory gills long and thin, gill of pereopod 6 with two accessory lobes; ventral spines on epimeron 2 numerous (in female only) and widely spread, facial spine(s) present; tooth on epimera 2–3 strong; dorsal tooth on pleonite 3 absent; dorsal tooth on urosomite 2 moderate; middle keel on urosomite 3 obsolescent; apicolateral spine on peduncle of uropod 2 significantly larger than others; inner ramus of uropod 3 as long as outer; maturation intermediate.

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Female “y” 23.4 mm: Apparently blind, head filled with dispersed glandular blots appressed to inside surface of head; lateral lobe bluntly mammilliform, antennal sinus shallow. Peduncle of antenna 1 thicker than in preceding species. Epistome and upper lip weakly articulate, separated by notch from side view, neither dominant, upper lip rounded below.

Right incisor with three small sharp or blunt apicomedial teeth, distal margin strongly crenulate laterally, left incisor with 4 strong teeth, margin wavy; right lacinia mobilis very small, flake-like, jaggedly serrate, much broader than long; left lacinia mobilis also much broader than long, better developed, almost evenly serrate apically; rakers numerous; molars medium to large, subconical, densely setulose, tapering to tiny apical plaque with weak triturative surface (much better developed than in T. wegeneri), palp article 1 short, article 2 well setose, article 3 short, clavate, with about 6 A-setae and many D- and E-setae. Lower lip with subsharp mandibular lobes, with gape between main lobes, inner lobes absent. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with narrow oral part heavily setose (17) medially, with thin denticle-spines on apicolateral edge, very broad aboral part extending behind outer plate; spines on outer plate 11, one spine small and inserted on oral face; only left palp articles 1–2 with one lateral seta each (less than in 2 preceding species), apices broad, multispinose and with numerous apicofacial setae. Inner plate of maxilla 2 distinctly smaller than outer (and thus differing from Valettiopsis and Valettietta), facial setal row with about 16 setae (and thus much less dense than in 2 genera mentioned). Inner plate of maxilliped with 3 main apical spines, dactyl short, evenly tapering, without inner apical tooth but with 2 main apical nails and several accessory setules.

Dactyls of gnathopods 1–2 with inner acclivity and tooth. Dactyls of pereopods with weak nail, one weak inner and weak facial setule; unlocking spines small and paired. Oostegites slender, strongly setose, present on coxae 2–5. Gills broad and unpleated, large on coxae 2–7, each with medium thin conical accessory lobe except lobe small on coxa 7 and coxa 6 with 2 accessory lobes.

Epimeron 1 with 1 anteroventral spine, epimeron 2 with 1–2 small anteroventral spines narrowly spread, one facial spine, and one large spine at M.70 on ventral margin, epimeron 3 with 7 spines widely spread, all spines placed singly. Each pleopod with 2 coupling hooks and 3 simple accessories, peduncles poorly setose or asetose, rami very long, subequal, outer and inner rami generally with 31–33 and 27 articles respectively.

Peduncle of uropod 1 with basolateral row of spines, apicolateral corner with large spine, other corner spines on uropods 1–2 small except apicolateral on uropod 2 slightly enlarged (larger than in T. diabolus); all rami with 2 rows of spines (not all seen laterally); peduncle of uropod 3 weakly elongate, with 2 groups of mid-ventrolateral spines. Each apex of telson strongly bifid, with one spine and setule, dorsum of each lobe with 3 sets of dorsal spines, also with basolateral set at M.40 opposite dorsobasal set, basolateral set of 1 bearing 2 inner setules (presumably the normal basolateral setule pair found in most amphipods).

FIGURE 39.—Upper, Tectovalopsis nebulosus, new species: y = holotype, female “y” 23.4 mm; f = female “f” 21.4 mm; m = male “m”, 23.5 mm. Lower, Tectovalopsis diabolus, new species, holotype, female “t” 19.1 mm.

Other Material: Male “m” 23.5 mm: Base of primary flagellum on antenna 1 conjoint, this article more than 0.75 times as long as peduncle; articles 4–5 of peduncle on antenna 2 thickened, posterior setae on article 4 elongate, anterior margin densely furnished with tufts of male setules; epimeron 1 with 1 spine, epimeron 2 with 1 facial and 4 marginal spines, 3 of these anteroventral, fourth strongly posterior, epimeron 3 with 8 spines; rami of uropod 3 strongly setose.

Female “f” 21.4 mm: Telson with different spine formula than in holotype, see illustration. This species appears to have the most proximal lateral spine lacking a dorsal partner in contrast to the 2 preceding species.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Most parts resembling previous 2 species; only following illustrations provided: head-antennae-coxae-1–2 of female, head-antennae of male, epimera 1–3 of female, epimera 1–2 of male, urosome of female, uropod 2, gills 5 and 6.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 235001, female “y” 23.4 mm (illustr.).

TYPE LOCALITY.—Jasper Seamount, off Baja California, 30°23.2′N, 119°58.5′W, 706 m, 6 Sep 1965, fish trap, R/V Agassiz, SIO Cat. No. C5709, Acc. No. BI65-65.

MATERIAL.—Type locality, 7 specimens, including “f” female 21.4 mm, “m” male 23.5 mm (illustr.).

RELATIONSHIP.—This species, which is probably much more widely spread than the previous 2 species that appear to be confined to hydrothermal vents, mixes together characters of the 2 preceding species: from T. wegeneri it has epimera 2–3 and urosome; from T. diabolus it has coxae 1–2, gnathopod 2 and mandibular incisor (even better developed teeth), and the slightly enlarged apicolateral spine on the peduncle of uropod 2. It differs from either species in the very thin accessory lobes on the gills.

DISTRIBUTION.—Jasper Seamount, 706 m.

Tectovalopsis diabolus, new species

FIGURES 39, 40 (part)

ETYMOLOGY.—The species name is from the Latin diabolus (devil).

DIAGNOSIS.—Coxae 1–2 not of broadened form, coxa 1 shortened and tapering; coxa 2 distinctly adz-shaped in terminal adult, less so in juveniles; palm of gnathopod 1 weakly oblique, well developed; palm of gnathopod 2 strongly oblique; accessory gills short and thick, gill of pereopod 6 with one accessory lobe; ventral spines on epimeron 2 few and narrowly spread, no facial spines present; tooth on epimera 2–3 weak; dorsal tooth on pleonite 3 absent; dorsal tooth on urosomite 2 weak; middle keel on urosomite 3 moderately developed; apicolateral spine on peduncle of uropod 2 significantly larger than others; inner ramus of uropod 3 as long as outer; maturation early.

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Female “t” 19.1 mm: Apparently blind, head filled with dispersed glandular blots appressed to inside surface of head; lateral lobe bluntly mammilliform, antennal sinus shallow. Peduncle of antenna 1 thinner than in preceding species. Epistome and upper lip weakly articulate, separated by notch from side view, neither dominant, upper lip rounded below.

Right incisor with two small sharp or blunt apicomedial teeth, distal margin strongly crenulate laterally, left incisor with 2 weak teeth, margin wavy; right lacinia mobilis very small, flake-like, jaggedly serrate, much broader than long; left lacinia mobilis also much broader than long, better developed, almost evenly serrate apically; rakers numerous; molars medium to large, subconical, densely setulose, tapering to tiny apical plaque with weak triturative surface (much better developed than in species preceding); palp article 1 short, article 2 well setose, article 3 short, clavate, with about 5 A-setae and many D- and E-setae. Lower lip with subsharp mandibular lobes, with gape between main lobes, inner lobes absent. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with narrow oral part heavily setose medially, with small denticle-spines on apicolateral edge, very broad aboral part extending behind outer plate; spines on outer plate 11, one spine small and inserted on oral face; palps with several lateral setae (more than in preceding species), apices broad, multispinose and with numerous apicofacial setae. Inner plate of maxilla 2 distinctly smaller than outer (and thus differing from Valettiopsis and Valettietta), facial setal row with about 10 setae (and thus much less dense than in 2 genera mentioned). Inner plate of maxilliped with 3 main apical spines, dactyl short, not evenly tapering, with inner apical tooth guarding 2 main apical nails and several accessory setules.

Dactyls of gnathopods 1–2 with inner acclivity and tooth. Dactyls of pereopods with weak nail, one weak inner and weak facial setule; unlocking spines small and paired. Oostegites slender, strongly setose, present on coxae 2–5. Gills broad and unpleated, large on coxae 2–7, each with medium thick conical accessory lobe except lobe small on coxa 7.

Epimeron 1 with 3 anteroventral spines, epimeron 2 with 4 spines narrowly spread, epimeron 3 with 4 spines narrowly spread, all spines placed singly. Each pleopod with 2 coupling hooks and 3 simple accessories, peduncles poorly setose or asetose, rami very long, subequal, outer and inner rami generally with 22 articles respectively.

Peduncle of uropod 1 with basolateral row of spines, apicolateral corner with large spine, other corner spines on uropods 1–2 small except apicolateral on uropod 2 scarcely enlarged; all rami with 2 rows of spines (not all seen laterally); peduncle of uropod 3 weakly elongate, with 2 groups of mid-ventrolateral spines. Each apex of telson strongly bifid, with one spine and setule, dorsum of each lobe with 3 sets of dorsal spines, also with basolateral set at M.40 opposite dorsobasal set, basolateral set of 1 bearing 2 inner setules (presumably the normal basolateral setule pair found in most amphipods).

FIGURE 40. Upper, Tectovalopsis diabolus, new species, holotype, female “t” 19.1 mm. Lower, Tectovalopsis fusilus, new species, holotype, female “z” 23.1 mm.

Other Material: Female “y” 23.4 mm: Gill of coxa 6 with 2 accessory lobes and all other single accessory lobes on gills 2,3,4,5,7 very thin and elongate.

Juvenile “e” 11.8 mm: Spine formula on epimera 1–3 = 1–1–2.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Most attributes are so similar to T. wegeneri that illustrations for the following parts are omitted: head, antenna 2, prebuccal, lower lip, inner and outer plates of maxilla 1, maxilla 2, maxilliped, pereopods 3–7, and coxae 3–7. However, articles 3–7 of pereopods 3–7 are slightly better spinose, the posterior serrations on article 2 of pereopods 5–7 are scarcely stronger; the palp of maxilla 1 is drawn to show slightly stronger lateral setation; outer plate of maxilliped slightly more setose laterally. Illustration of gnathopod 2 enlarged to same degree as on T. wegeneri by matching dactyls, then rolled so defining spines of palm at articular margin.

MINOR COMPARISONS.—This species differs from T. wegeneri in the slightly weaker lobe of coxa 4, and slightly stouter gnathopods with shorter articles 5–6 on gnathopod 2.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 235002, female “t” 19.1 mm.

TYPE LOCALITY.—Biocyarise 84-33, 12°48.6′N, 103°56.7′W, 2635 m, 10 Mar 1984, aspirator.

MATERIAL.—The type locality (1); Biocyarise 84-38, 12°48.8′N, 103°56.8′W, 2635 m, 15 Mar 1984, aspirator, female “a” 19.2 mm, juvenile “e” 11.8 mm. Biocyarise 84-39, 12°48.6′N, 103°56.7′W, 2635 m, 16 Mar 1984, trap number 5, 1 specimen.

RELATIONSHIP.—This species differs from T. wegeneri in (1) the slightly more tapering coxa 1; (2) the more adz-shaped coxa 2; (3) the very oblique palm of gnathopod 2; (4) the fewer and less widely spread spines on epimera 2–3; (5) the smaller tooth on epimera 2–3; (6) slightly stronger dorsal projection of urosomite 2 and strong dorsal keel on urosomite 3; and (7) outer ramus of uropod 2 even shorter. In addition, as noted above, most specimens show noticeable distinctions in short gnathopod 2, smaller lobe on coxa 4, and narrower base of antenna 1.

DISTRIBUTION.—East Pacific, 13°N Vents, 2635 m.

Tectovalopsis fusilus, new species

FIGURES 40 (part), 41

ETYMOLOGY.—The species name is from the Latin fusilus (molten).

DIAGNOSIS.—Coxae 1–2 not of broadened form, coxa 1 shortened but rounded apically, rectangular, weakly tapering; coxa 2 not distinctly adz-shaped; palm of gnathopod 1 strongly oblique, poorly developed; palm of gnathopod 2 strongly oblique; accessory gills short and thick, gill of pereopods 5–6 with one accessory lobe; ventral spines on epimeron 2 numerous and widely spread, mostly occurring in doublets, adults with 1+ facial spine; tooth on epimera 2–3 strong; dorsal tooth on pleonite 3 absent; dorsal tooth on urosomite 2 obsolescent; middle keel on urosomite 3 obsolescent or absent; apicolateral spine on peduncle of uropod 2 not larger than other spines; inner ramus of uropod 3 shorter than outer; maturation ordinary.

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Female “z” 23.1 mm: Apparently blind, head filled with dispersed glandular blots appressed to inside surface of head; lateral lobe bluntly mammilliform, antennal sinus shallow. Articles 4–5 of antenna 2 equally long (unusual). Epistome and upper lip weakly articulate, separated by notch from side view, neither dominant, upper lip weakly pointed below.

Right incisor with obsolescent blunt apicomedial tooth, distal margin barely crenulate laterally, left incisor almost glass-smooth; right lacinia mobilis very small, flake-like, jaggedly serrate, much broader than long; left lacinia mobilis also much broader than long, better developed, almost evenly serrate apically; rakers numerous; molars medium to large, subconical, densely setulose, tapering to medium sized diffuse apical region with weak triturative surface (much better developed than in species above); palp article 1 short, article 2 well setose, article 3 short, clavate, with about 5 A-setae and many D- and E-setae. Lower lip with blunt mandibular lobes, with gape between main lobes, inner lobes absent. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with narrow oral part heavily setose medially, with small denticle-spines on apicolateral edge, very broad aboral part extending behind outer plate; spines on outer plate 11, one spine small and inserted on oral face; palps with several lateral setae, apices broad, multispinose and with numerous apicofacial setae. Inner plate of maxilla 2 distinctly smaller than outer (and thus differing from Valettiopsis and Valettietta), facial setal row with about 11 setae (and thus much less dense than in 2 genera mentioned). Inner plate of maxilliped with 3 main apical spines, dactyl short, evenly tapering, without inner apical tooth but with 2 main apical nails and several accessory setules.

Dactyls of gnathopods 1–2 with inner acclivity and tooth. Dactyls of pereopods with weak nail, one weak inner and weak facial setule; unlocking spines paired. Oostegites slender, strongly setose, present on coxae 2–6. Gills broad and unpleated, large on coxae 2–7, each with medium thick conical accessory lobe except lobe small on coxa 7.

Epimeron 1 with 5 anteroventral spines, epimeron 2 with spines widely spread in formula of s–s–s–[ss]–s–s–s, (brackets indicating slightly subfacial pair), with 2 facial spines, epimeron 3 with 6 spine positions widely spread, in formula of s–s–2s–2s–2s–2s, thus 4 sets of doublets present. Each pleopod with 2 coupling hooks and 4–3–1 (pleopods 1–2–3) simple accessories, peduncles poorly spinose, rami very long, subequal, outer and inner rami generally with 28 and 24 articles (23 on pleopod 3) respectively.

Peduncle of uropod 1 with basolateral row of spines, apicolateral corner with large spine, other corner spines on uropods 1–2 small, all rami bearing 2 rows of spines (not all seen laterally); peduncle of uropod 3 weakly elongate, with mid-ventrolateral spine. Each apex of telson barely bifid, with 1–2 spines and setule, dorsum of each lobe with 2 sets of dorsal spines, most basal set near M.48.

FIGURE 41.—Tectovalopsis fusilus, new species, holotype, female “z” 23.1 mm.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Following items as in T. wegeneri: head, lengths of antennae, antenna 1 (except ventral setae of articles 1–2 longer and article 1 of primary flagellum 33 percent more elongate; accessory flagellum 9-articulate), prebuccal, labium, maxillae 1–2, maxilliped (except dactyl like T. diabolus, pereopods 3–7 (except article 2 of pereopods 6–7 more robust).

Spine counts on non-illustrated parts: uropod 1 peduncle ventrolateral = 8, dorsolateral = 14, medial = 11 (slightly enlarged), outer ramus lateral = 9, medial = 15, inner ramus lateral = 9, medial = 24; uropod 2 peduncle dorsolateral = 6, medial = 6, outer ramus lateral = 8, medial = 11, inner ramus lateral = 11, medial = 20; uropod 3 peduncle dorsolateral = 2, ventral = 5, outer ramus lateral formula (s = seta) 1–2+s–2–2+s–2–2, medial = 1–1–1–2–1–2+s–2–2+s–1–2–2+s–2, inner ramus lateral = 1–1+s–1+s–1, medial = 8 basal setae, then at M.46 1–1–1+s–1+s–1+s–1–2–1+s–2; urosomite 3 with 2 dorsal spines on each side.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 235003, female “z” 23.1 mm (illustrated).

TYPE LOCALITY.—SIO Cat. no. C5712, Acc. No. BI 73-13, R/V Agassiz Cruise MV-73-I-26, Punta San Telmo, Guerrero, Mexico, 17°48.8′N, 103°09.7′W, 2884 m, 4–5 Apr 1973, free vehicle trap.

MATERIAL.—Unique.

RELATIONSHIP.—This species differs from T. wegeneri in the very oblique palms of the gnathopods and the doubling of spines in ventral sets on epimeron 3. Of lesser or uncertain importance are: the equally long articles 4–5 of antenna 2, the broader telsonic apices, and the shorter inner ramus of uropod 3.

This species lacks the characters found in T. nebulosus and T. diabolus, such as keel on urosomite 3, incisorial teeth, and adz-shaped coxa 2. See T. regelatus for distinctions from that species.

DISTRIBUTION.—Off Punta San Telmo, Mexico, 2884 m.

Transtectonia, new genus

ETYMOLOGY.—The genus name is from the Latin trans (across) plus tecto (root from Tectovalopsis).

DIAGNOSIS.—Mouthparts forming quadrate bundle. Labrum and epistome separate, neither dominant in size, blunt. Incisor strongly toothed; left and right laciniae mobiles longer than broad, right vestigial; molar large, conical, setulose, with tiny apical fused spine cluster; palp attached strongly distal to molar. Inner plate of maxilla 1 strongly setose medially (16), palp biarticulate, large. Inner plate of maxilla 2 slightly smaller than outer, with strong row of barely submarginal mediofacial setae (4), but number of setae in row about one-third or less that in Valettiopsis and Valettietta. Inner and outer plates of maxilliped well developed, inner beveled, palp strongly exceeding outer plate, dactyl well developed, with apical nail and several accessory setules.

Coxa 1 not shortened and not strongly covered by coxa 2, scarcely tapering, not truncate. Posteroventral lobe on coxa 4 large.

Gnathopod 1 elongate, weakly subchelate, palm oblique, articles 5 and 6 subequal, article 3 slightly elongate, dactyl small; article 6 of gnathopod 2 shorter than article 5, both very elongate and linear, propodus subchelate. Pereopods 5–7 elongate.

Pleonite 4 carinate (versus Paralicella). Only outer ramus of uropod 2 shortened. Inner ramus of uropod 2 without notch. Uropod 3 dispariramous, ordinary, peduncle ordinary, inner ramus shortened, outer ramus 2-articulate. Telson elongate, deeply cleft.

TYPE SPECIES.—Transtectonia torrentis, new species.

RELATIONSHIP.—Differing from Valettiopsis and Valettiella in the non-triturative molar, unshortened coxa 1, small number of medial setae on the maxillae, narrow poorly armed palp of maxilla 1, vestigial right lacinia mobilis, unusual left lacinia mobilis (ovoid, longer than broad, poorly toothed), large lobe of coxa 4, and poorly subchelate gnathopods.

This genus forms a weak transition from the Valettiopsis morph to that of Tectovalopsis but is clearly not on the direct ancestral line because the apex of the molar retains no mark of trituration surface, only a few fused spinules (versus weak trituration surface in some species of Tectovalopsis). Transtectonia differs from Tectovalopsis in the unreduced coxa 1, broader labrum with weak ventral excavation (like Valettiopsis), well-developed teeth of the incisor, vestigial right lacinia mobilis, ovate and narrow left lacinia mobilis, many fewer setae on inner plate of maxilla 1, narrow palp of maxilla 1 with distinctive spination, subequal plates of maxilla 2 with medial setae barely submarginal, and beveled inner plate of maxilliped.

The type species of Transtectonia differs from the species of Tectovalopsis in a subtly distinct shape of coxa 4, more strongly tapering article 2 of pereopods 5–7 (especially 7), more elongate pereopods 3–4, enlargement of one unlocking spine on pereopods 3–4, shorter antennae and poorly developed spination on the epimera. Accessory lobes on the gills are very weak. The eleventh subsidiary spine on the outer plate of maxilla 1 is barely facial. The head is very short.

SPECIES.

T. torrentis, new species [504A].

DISTRIBUTION.—Marine, 13°N Vents, 2630–2635 m, 1 species.

Transtectonia torrentis, new species

FIGURES 42, 43

ETYMOLOGY.—The species name is from the Latin torrentis (torrential).

DIAGNOSIS (for comparison to Tectovalopsis).—Antennae especially short, antenna 2 slightly shorter than 1. Coxae 1–2 not of broadened form, coxa 1 not shortened, subtruncate, scarcely tapering; coxa 2 scarcely adz-shaped; palm of gnathopod 1 strongly oblique, poorly developed; palm of gnathopod 2 strongly oblique; accessory gills very poorly developed and thick, gill of pereopod 6 with one accessory lobe; ventral spines on epimeron 2 sparse and poorly spread, adults with 1+ facial spine; tooth on epimeron 2 weak, epimeron 3 broadly rounded behind; dorsal tooth on pleonite 3 absent; dorsal tooth on urosomite 2 obsolescent; middle keel on urosomite 3 obsolescent or absent; apicolateral spine on peduncle of uropod 2 not larger than other spines; inner ramus of uropod 3 much shorter than outer; maturation not delayed.

DESCRIPTION.—Holotype: Male “g” 10.6 mm: Apparently blind, head filled with dispersed glandular blots appressed to inside surface of head; lateral lobe bluntly mammilliform, antennal sinus shallow. Epistome and upper lip weakly articulate, separated by notch from side view, neither dominant, upper lip broad and weakly excavate below.

Right incisor with 2 small blunt apicomedial teeth, one large apicolateral tooth and notch, distal margin barely crenulate, left incisor subovate, elongate, longer than broad, with 4–5 small teeth, right lacinia mobilis vestigial, spine-like; rakers numerous; molars medium to large, subconical, densely setulose, tapering to narrow spinose point; palp article 1 short, article 2 setose only apically, article 3 short, clavate, with 2 A-setae and many D- and E-setae. Lower lip with blunt mandibular lobes, with gape between main lobes, inner lobes absent. Inner plate of maxilla 1 with narrow oral part heavily setose medially, with small denticle-spines on apicolateral edge, very broad aboral part extending behind outer plate; spines on outer plate 11, one spine small and inserted on oral face; palps narrow, with 2 apicolateral setae, apices narrow, with about 6 thin apical spines and with 3 apicofacial setae. Inner plate of maxilla 2 scarcely smaller than outer (and thus not differing from Valettiopsis and Valettietta), facial setal row barely submarginal, with about 4–5 setae (and thus much less dense than in 2 genera mentioned). Inner plate of maxilliped with 3 main apical spines, dactyl short, evenly tapering, with weak apical nail and 2 accessory setules.

Dactyls of gnathopods 1–2 with inner acclivity and appressed tooth. Pereopod 4 as large as pereopod 3 (unusual, distinct therefore from Tectovalopsis), dactyls of pereopods with weak nail, one weak inner and weak facial setule; unlocking spines paired, uneven, one greatly enlarged on pereopods 3–4. Oostegites slender, strongly setose, present on coxae 2–6. Gills broad and unpleated, large on coxae 2–7, each with very small thick conical accessory lobe except lobe small or absent on coxa 7.

Epimeron 1 with 1 anteroventral spine, epimeron 2 with 2 ventral spines narrowly spread, with 1 facial spine, epimeron 3 with 6 spines narrowly spread, all spines placed singly. Each pleopod with 2 coupling hooks and 1 simple accessory, peduncles poorly setose or asetose, rami very long, subequal, outer and inner rami generally with 19 and 16 articles respectively.

FIGURE 42.—Transtectonia torrentis, new species: unattributed figures = holotype, female “g” 10.6 mm; j = female “j” 20.3 mm.

FIGURE 43.—Transtectonia torrentis, new species, holotype, female “g” 10.6 mm.

Peduncle of uropod 1 with basolateral row of spines, apicolateral corner with large spine, other corner spines on uropods 1–2 small, all rami bearing 2 rows of spines (not all seen laterally); peduncle of uropod 3 weakly elongate, with 2 mid-ventrolateral spines. Each apex of telson weakly bifid, with one spine and setule, dorsum of each lobe with 4 sets of dorsal spines, basolateral set at M.35, next distal set of 1 bearing 2 inner setules (presumably the normal basolateral setule pair found in most amphipods).

Spine counts: uropod 1 peduncle ventrofacial = 6, dorsolateral = 9, medial = 8, outer ramus lateral = 7, medial = 9, inner ramus lateral = 7, medial = 15; uropod 2 peduncle dorsolateral = 3, medial = 4, outer ramus lateral = 6, medial = 4, inner ramus lateral = 7, medial = 11.

Other Material: Female “h” 21.2 mm: Oostegites small and asetose.

Female “i” 20.3 mm: Oostegites fully developed, narrow, setose.

Juvenile female “i” 16.4 mm: Oostegites rudimentary. Examples of spination: ventral epimeron 2 = 2, facial = 2; uropod 1 peduncle dorsolateral = 11, ventrofacial = 5; uropod 2 peduncle dorsolateral = 4, outer ramus lateral = 9.

REMARKS.—These specimens are gluttonous but the coxae are not splayed laterally. Note that proportions of gnathopod 1 are distinct from Tectovalopsis wegeneri in that articles 4–6 are much longer and thicker relative to the widths of articles 2 and 3. The palms of the gnathopods are smooth, unlike those of Tectovalopsis. Antenna 2 is shorter than 1 by the length of 3 flagellar articles. The mandibular palp is smaller relative to the body than that of Tectovalopsis. The ventral setae on the outer plate of the maxilliped are much larger than in Tectovalopsis. Coxa 4 has a distinctive shape. Article 2 on the outer ramus of uropod 3 is especially small compared with species in Valettiopsis, Valettietta, and Tectovalopsis.

ILLUSTRATIONS.—Pereopods 5–7 reduced to 87 percent of coxae 1–4. Gnathopod 2 aspect like Tectovalopsis wegeneri, see enlargement of palm.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 235004, male “g,” 10.6 mm (illustrated).

TYPE LOCALITY.—Biocyarise 84-39, 12°48.6′N, 103°56.7′W, 2635 m, 16 Mar 1984, subsample source unknown.

MATERIAL.—Type locality, 3 specimens. Biocyarise 84-34, 12°49.1′N, 103°56.9′W, 2635 m, 11 Mar 1984, 2 subsamples, associated with polychaetes and in the basket, 3 specimens. Biocyatherm 82-34, 12°48.6′N, 103°56.7′W, 11 Mar 1982, 2630–2635 m, trap, female “h” 21.2 mm, juvenile female “i” 16.4 mm, female “j” 20.3 mm. Biocyarise 84-41, 12°48.6′N, 103°56.7′W, 2635 m, 23 Mar 1984, subsample source unknown, 2 specimens. Biocyarise 84-42, 12°48.6′N, 103°56.7′W, 2635 m, 24 Mar 1984, basket, 1 specimen. Biocyarise 84-46, 12°48.6′N, 103°56.7′W, 2635 m, 28 Mar 1984, basket 2, 3 specimens.

DISTRIBUTION.—East Pacific, 13°N Vents, 2630–2635 m.

Literature Cited

Andres, H.G.

1979.   Gammaridea (Amphipoda, Crustacea) der Antarktis-Expedition 1975/1976 Auswertung der Dauerstation sudlich von Elephant Island. Meeresforschung, 27:88–102, 3 figures, 3 tables.

1983.   Die Gammaridea (Crustacea: Amphipoda) der deutschen Antarktis-Expeditionen 1975/76 und 1977/78, 3: Lysianassidae. Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburg Zoologischen Museum und Institut, 80:183–220, 14 figures.

Bamard, J.L.

1961.   Gammaridean Amphipoda from Depths of 400 to 6000 Meters. Galathea Report, 5:23–128, 83 figures.

1962.   South Atlantic Abyssal Amphipods Collected by R.V. Vema. Abyssal Crustacea, Vema Research Series, 1:1–78, 79 figures.

1964a. Deep-Sea Amphipoda (Crustacea) Collected by the R/V “Vema” in the Eastern Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 127:3–46, 33 figures, 1 table.

1964b. Marine Amphipoda of Bahia de San Quintin, Baja California. Pacific Naturalist, 4:55–139,21 figures, 17 charts, 13 tables.

1966a. Submarine Canyons of Southern California, Part V. Systematics: Amphipoda. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 27(5): 166 pages, 46 figures.

1966b. Benthic Amphipoda of Monterey Bay, California. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 119(3541): 41 pages, 7 figures.

1967.   Bathyal and Abyssal Gammaridean Amphipoda of Cedros Trench, Baja California. United States National Museum Bulletin, 260: 205 pages, 92 figures.

1969a. Gammaridean Amphipoda of the Rocky Intertidal of California: Monterey Bay to La Jolla. United States National Museum Bulletin, 258: 230 pages, 65 figures.

1969b. A Biological Survey of Bahia de Los Angeles Gulf of California, Mexico, IV: Benthic Amphipoda (Crustacea). Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History: 15:175–228,30 figures.

1971.   Gammaridean Amphipoda from a Deep-Sea Transect off Oregon. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 61: 86 pages, 48 figures.

Barnard, J.L., and C.M. Barnard

1983.   Freshwater Amphipoda of the World, I: Evolutionary Patterns and II: Handbook and Bibliography. xix + 830 pages, 50 figures, 7 graphs, 98 maps, 12 tables. Mt. Vernon, Virginia: Hayfield Associates.

Barnard, J.L., and G.S. Karaman

1987.   Revisions in Classification of Gammaridean Amphipoda (Crustacea), Part 3. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 100:856–875.

In press. Families and Genera of Marine Gammaridean Amphipoda (Except Marine Gammarida). Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement.

Barnard, J.L., and E. Shulenberger

1976.   Clarification of the Abyssal Amphipod, Paralicella tenuipes Chevreux. Crustaceana, 31:267–274,2 figures.

Barnard, K.H.

1925.   Contributions to the Crustacean Fauna of South Africa.-No. 8: Further Additions to the List of Amphipoda. Annals of the South African Museum, 20:319–380, plate 34.

1930.   Amphipoda. British Antarctic (“Terra Nova”) Expedition, 1910.   Natural History Reports, Zoology, 8:307–454,63 figures.

1932.   Amphipoda. Discovery Reports, 5: 326 pages, 174 figures, 1 plate.

1955.   Additions to the Fauna-list of South African Crustacea and Pycnogonida. Annals of the South African Museum, 43:1–107,53 figures.

Bate, C.S.

1862.   Catalogue of the Specimens of Amphipodous Crustacea in the Collection of the British Museum, London. iv and 399 pages, plates 1, 1a, 2–58. London: British Museum of Natural History.

Bate, C.S., and J.O. Westwood

1868.   A History of the British Sessile-eyed Crustacea. Volume 2, pages 1–536, many unnumbered figures. London: John van Voorst.

Bellan-Santini, D.

1972a. Amphipodes provenant des contenus stomacaux de trois especes de poissons Nototheniidae recoltes en Terre Adelie (Antarctique). Tethys, 4:683–702, 10 plates.

1972b. Invertebres marine des XIIeme et XVeme expeditions antarctiques francaises en Terre Adelie 10. - Amphipodes Gammariens. Tethys Supplement, 4:157–238, 37 plates.

1974.   Amphipodes bathyaux de Mediterranee. Bulletin de l'Institut Oceanographique, Monaco, 71(1427): 20 pages, 8 figures.

Bellan-Santini, D., and M. Ledoyer

1974.   Gammariens (Crustacea-Amphipoda) des Iles Kerguelen et Crozet. Tethys, 5:635–707, 39 plates.

Birstein, J.A., and M.E. Vinogradov

1955.   Pelagicheskie gammaridy (Amphipoda-Gammaridea) Kurilo-Kamchatskoi Vpadiny. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii, 12:210–287, 35 figures. Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

1958.   Pelagicheskie gammaridy (Amphipoda, Gammaridea) severo-zapadnoi chasti Tikhogo Okeana. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii, 27:219–257, 17 figures. Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

1960.   Pelagicheskie gammaridy tropicheskoi chasti Tixogo Okeana. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii, 34:165–241, 34 figures. Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

1962.   Pelagicheskie gammaridy (Amphipoda, Gammaridea), sobrannye sovetskoi antarkticheskoi expeditsiei na dizel'-elektroxode “OB’” kjogu ot 40* jo. sh. Issledovanija Fauny Morei, 1(0):36–57, 12 figures. Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

1963.   The Deep-Sea Pelagic Amphipods of the Philippine Trench. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii, 71:81–93, 7 figures. Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

1964.   Pelagicheskie gammaridy severnoi chasti Indiiskogo Okeana. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii, 65:152–195, 10 figures. Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

Boeck, A.

1861.   Bemaerkninger angaaende de ved de norske Kyster forekommende Amphipoder. Forhandlinger Skandinaviske Naturforskeres Ottende, 8:631–677.

1871.   Crustacea Amphipoda borealia et arctica. Forhandlinger i Videnskabs-Selskabet i Christiania, 1870:83–280.

1876.   De skandinaviske og artiske amphipoder. iv + 712 pages, 32 plates. Christiania: A.W. Brogger.

Bousfield, E.L.

1973.   Shallow-water Gammaridean Amphipoda of New England. vii–xii + 312 pages, 13 figures, 69 plates. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Broyer, C. de

1973.   Notes sur les Orchomene (Amphipoda, Lysianassidae) de l'ocean Austral, 1: Description d'Orchomene hureaui n.sp. de Terre Adelie. Bulletin Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 49, Biologie, (7):12 pages, 4 figures.

1975.   Notes sur les Orchomene (Amphipoda, Lysianassidae) de l'ocean austral, 2: Nouvelle description d'Orchomene chelipes (Walker) et d'Orchomene goniops Walker de la Mer de Ross. Journal of Natural History, 9:457–470, 6 figures.

1984.   Evolution du complexe Orchomene Boeck (Amphipoda, Lysianassidae). Annales de la Societe Royale Zoologique de Belgique, 114(supplement 1):197–198.

1985a. Amphipodes lysianassoides necrophages des iles Kerguelen (Crustacea), 1: Orchomenella guillei n.sp. Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, series 4, section A, 1:205–217, 7 figures.

1985b. Notes sur les Orchomene de l'ocean austral, 3: Revision d'Orchomenella acanthura (Schellenberg) (Crustacea Amphipoda: Lysianassoidea). Journal of Natural History, 19:729–738, 5 figures.

Bruggen, E. von der

1909.   Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Amphipoden-Fauna der russischen Arctis. Memoires de l’ Academie Imperiale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg, series 8, Physico-Mathematique Classe, 18(16): 56 pages, 3 plates, 4 figures.

Bryazgin, V.F.

1974.   Species of the Family Lysianassidae (Amphipoda, Gammaridea) First Recorded for the Barents Sea. Zoologichesckii Zhurnal, 53:1570–1574, 3 figures. Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

Bulycheva, A.

1952.   Novye vidy bokoplavov (Amphipoda, Gammaridea) iz Japonskogo Morja. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta, 12:195–250, 39 figures. Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

Chevreux, E.

1889.   Amphiodes nouveaux provenant des campagnes de 1'Hirondelle 1887–1888. Bullletin de la Societe; Zoologique de France, 14:284–289, 3 figures [unnumbered].

1890.   Microprotopus maculatus et Microprotopus longimanus. Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France, 15:148–153,7 figures.

1900.   Amphipodes provenant des campagnes de l'Hirondelle (1885–1888). Resultats des Campagnes Scientifiques Accomplies par le Prince Albert I. Monaco, 16: iv + 195 pages, 18 plates.

1903.   Note preliminaire sur les amphipodes de la famille des Lysianassidae recueillis par la Princesse–Alice dans les eaux profondes de l'Atlantique et de la Mediterranee. Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France, 28:81–97,7 figures.

1905.   Diagnoses d'amphipodes nouveaux provenant de l'expedition antaracique du Francais. Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France, 30:159–165, 3 figures.

1906.   Crustaces amphipodes. In Expedition Antarctique Francaise (1903–1905) commandee par le Dr Jean Charcot, 100 pages, 56 figures. Paris: Sciences Naturelles, Documents Scientifiques.

1907.   Orchomenella lobata nouvelle espece d'amphipode des regions arctiques. Bulletin de l'Institut Oceanographique, Monaco, 96: 6 pages, 3 figures.

1908.   Diagnoses d'amphipodes nouveaux provenant des campagnes de la Princesse-Alice dans 1'Atlantique nord. Bulletin de l'Institut Oceanographique, Monaco, 117: 13 pages, 7 figures.

1909.   Diagnoses d'amphipodes nouveaux provenent des campagnes de La Princesse-Alice dans L'Atlantique nord. Bulletin d L'Institut Océanographique, 150:7,7 pages, 3 figures.

1910.   Diagnoses d'amphipodes nouveaux provenant des campagnes de la Princesse-Alice dans 1'Atlantique nord. Bulletin de l'Institut Oceanographique, 156: 4 pages, 2 figures.

1912a. Diagnoses d'amphipodes nouveaux. In Deuxieme Expedition dans l'Antarctique, dirigee par le Dr. Charcot, 1908–1910. Bulletin du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 18:208–218.

1912b. Amphipodes. In Deuxieme Expedition Antarctique Franciase (1908–1910) commandee par le Dr. Jean Characot, pages 79–186, 62 figures. Paris: Sciences Naturelles, Documents Scientifiques.

1919–1920.   Note preliminaire sur les amphipodes recueillis par les expeditions du Travailleur et du Talisman (1880–1883). Bulletin du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, 1919:574–580; 1920:7–12.

1920.   Sur quelques amphipodes nouveaux ou peu connus provenant des cotes de Bretagne. Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France, 45:75–87, 9 figures.

1926.   Diagnoses d'amphipodes nouveaux provenant des campagnes de la Princesse-Alice dans 1'Atlantique et dans 1'Ocean Arctique. Bulletin de l'Institut Oceanographique, 475:12 pages, 6 figures.

1927.   Crustaces amphipodes. In Expedition Scientifique de Travailleur et du Talisman Pendant les Annees 1880, 1881, 1882, Malacostraces (Suite), 9:41–152, 14 plates.

1935.   Amphipodes provenant des campagnes du Prince Albert I de Monaco. Resultats des Campagnes Scientifiques accomplies par le Prince Albert I, 90:214, 16 plates.

Chevreux, E., and L. Fage

1925.   Amphipodes. Faune de France, 9: 488 pages, 438 figures.

Chilton, C.

1921.   Report on the Amphipoda Obtained by the F.I.S. “Endeavour” in Australian Seas. Biological Results of the Fishing Experiments Carried on by the F.I.S. “Endeavour,” 1909–14, 5:33–92, 16 figures.

Costa, A.

1853.   Relazione sulla memoria del dottor Achille Costa, di ricerche su'crostacei amfipodi del regno di Napoli. Rendiconto della Societa Reale Borbonica, Accademia delle Scienze, new series, 2:167–178.

1857.   Ricerche sui crostacei amfipodi del regno di Napoli. Memorie della Reale Accademia de Scienze di Napoli, 1:165–235, 4 plates.

Dahl, E.

1954.   A Collection of Amphipoda from the Ross Sea. Arkiv for Zoology, series 2, 7:281–293, 41 figures.

1959.   Amphipoda from Depths Exceeding 6000 Meters. Galathea Report, 1:211–240, 20 figures.

de Broyer, see Broyer, C. de

Della-Valle, A.

1893.   Gammarini del Golfo di Napoli. Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres- Abschnitte. Monographie, 20: xi and 948 pages, atlas [Atlante] of 61 plates.

Dunbar, M.J.

1954.   The Amphipod Crustacea of Ungava Bay, Canadian Eastern Arctic. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 11:709–798, 42 figures.

Giles, G.M.

1890.   Descriptions of Seven Additional New Indian Amphipods. In Natural History Notes from H.M.'s Indian Marine Survey Steamer ‘Investigator,’ Commander Alfred Carpenter, R.N., D.S.O., Commanding.-No. 15. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 59:63–74, plate 2.

Goes, A.

1866.   Crustacea Amphipoda maris Spetsbergiam alluentis, cum speciebus aliis arcticis enumerat. Ofversigt af Kongelige Vetenskaps-Akademiens Forhandligar, 1865:517–536, plates 36–41 [reprint, pages 1–20].

Griffiths, C.L.

1973.   The Amphipoda of Southem Africa, Part I: The Gammaridea and Caprellidea of Southern Mocambique. Annals of the South African Museum, 60:265–306, figures 4–11.

1974a. The Amphipoda of Southern Africa, Part 2: The Gammaridea and Caprellidea of South West Africa South of 20°S. Annals of the South African Museum, 62:169–208, 7 figures.

1974b. The Amphipoda of Southern Africa, Part 4: The Gammaridea and Caprellidea of the Cape Province East of Cape Agulhas. Annals of the South African Museum, 65:251–336, 18 figures.

1975.   The Amphipoda of Southern Africa Part 5: The Gammaridea and Caprellidea of the Cape Province West of Cape Agulhas. Annals of the South African Museum, 67:91–181, 21 figures.

1977.   Deep-Sea Amphipods From West of Cape Point, South Africa. Annals of the South African Museum, 73:93–104, 6 figures.

Gurjanova, E.

1938.   Amphipoda, Gammaroidea of Siaukhu Bay and Sudzukhe Bay (Japan Sea). Reports of the Japan Sea Hydrobiological Expedition of the Zoological Institute of the Academy of Sciences USSR in 1934, 1:241–404, 59 figures.

1951.   Bokoplavy morej SSSR i sopredel'nykh vod (Amphipoda-Gammaridea). Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, 41:1029 pages, 705 figures. Akademiia Nauk SSSR.

1962.   Bokoplavy severnoi chasti Tixogo Okeana (Amphipoda-Gammaridea) chast’ 1. Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, 74: 440 pages, 143 figures. Akademii Nauk SSSR.

Hansen, H.J.

1887.   Oversigt over de paa Dijmphna-Togtet indsamlede Krebsdyr. Dijmphna-Togtets Zoologisk-Botaniske Udbytte, 1887:183–286, plates 20–24.

1888.   Malacostraca marina Groenlandiae occidentalis. Oversigt over det vestlige Gronlands Fauna af malakostrake Havkrebsdyr. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening, Kjobenhavn, 1887:5–226, plates 2–7.

Heller, C.

1868.   Crustaceen. Reise der Osterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde in den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859 unter den Befehlen des Commodore B. Von Wullerstorf-Urbair, Zoologischer Theil, 2(3): 280 pages, 25 plates.

Hessler, R.R., C.L. Ingram, A.A. Yayanos, and B. Burnett

1978.   Scavenging Amphipods from the Floor of the Philippine Trench. Deep-Sea Research, 25:1029–1047, 11 figures.

Holmes, S. J.

1904.   Amphipod Crustaceans of the Expedition. Harriman Alaska Expedition, 1904:233–246, figures 118–128.

1908.   The Amphipoda Collected by the United States Bureau of Fisheries Steamer, “Albatross,” off the West Coast of North America, in 1903 and 1904, with Descriptions of a New Family and Several New Genera and Species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 35:489–543, 46 figures.

Hurley, D.E.

1963.   Amphipoda of the Family Lysianassidae from the West Coast of North and Central America. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Paper, 25:1–165, figures 1–49.

1965a. A Re-Description of Some A.O. Walker Types of “Southern Cross” Lysianassidae (Crustacea Amphipoda) from the Ross Sea. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Zoology, 6:155–181, 15 figures.

1965b. A Re-Description of Orchomenella chilensis (Heller) (Crustacea Amphipoda: Family Lysianassidae) from the Original Material Collected by the “Novara” in Chilean Waters. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 6:183–188, 2 figures.

1965c. A Common but Hitherto Undescribed Species of Orchomenella (Crustacea Amphipoda: Family Lysianassidae) from the Ross Sea. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 6:107–113, 2 figures.

Kamenskaya, O.E.

1981.   The Amphipods (Crustacea) from Deep-Sea Trenches in the Western Part of the Pacific Ocean. In Deep Sea Bottom Fauna of the Pacific Ocean. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii of P.P. Shirshov, 115:94–107, figures 1–4.

Karaman, G.S.

1973.   On Some New or Very Interesting Amphipoda of the Adriatic Sea. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona, 20:99–147, 19 figures.

Krapp-Schickel, G.

1974.   Camill Hellers Sammlung adriatischer Amphipoden - 1866 und Heute. Annalen der Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, 78:319–379, 28 plates.

Kroyer, H.

1846a. Atlas Voyages de la commission scientifique du Nord; en Scandinavie, en Laponie, au Spitzberg et aux Fero, pendant les annees 1838–1840, sur la corvette la Recherche, commandee par M. Fabvre. Plates 10, 11, 13–20, 22, 23. Paris: M. Paul Gaimard. [Not seen, from Stebbing, 1888:216.]

1846b. Karcinologiske Bidrag (Fortsaettelse). Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, 2:1–211, plates 1–2. [Amphipoda, pages 1–88, 115–123.]

Kudrjaschov, V.A.

1972.   On a New Species of Dogielinotus (Amphipoda) from the Sea of Okhotsk. Crustaceana, supplement, 3:246–250, 2 figures.

Kudrjaschov, V., and A. Yu. Zvjagintse

1975.   Amphipods [sic] Crustaceans: Composition and Distribution in the Fouling of Natural Substrates in the Tidal Zone of the Tauysk Gulf, the Okhotsk Sea. Transactions Institute of Marine Biology, Vladivostok, 3:137–166.

Lagardere, J.P.

1968.   Les crustaces de l'expedition francaise R.C.P. 42 au Spitsberg (etc 1966). Bulletin du Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Scientifiques Biarritz, 7:155–205, 3 figures, 11 plates.

Ledoyer, M.

1977.   Contribution a l'etude de l'ecologie de la faune vagile profunde de la Mediterranee nord occidentale, 1: les gammariens (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Bolletino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona, 4:321–421, 32 figures, 2 maps.

Lincoln, R. J.

1979.   A New Species of Lysianassa Milne-Edwards (Amphipoda: Lysianassidae) from the Channel Isles. Journal of Natural History, 13:251–255, 3 figures.

Lincoln, R.J., and M.H. Thurston

1983.   Valettietta, A New Genus of Deep-Sea Amphipod Gammaridea: Lysianassidae) with Descriptions of Two New Species from the North Atlantic Ocean. Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History (Zoology), 44:85–101, 10 figures.

Lowry, J.K., and S. Bullock

1976.   Catalogue of the Marine Gammaridean Amphipods of the Southern Ocean. Royal Society of New Zealand, Bulletin, 16:iv + 187 pages, 3 figures.

Lowry, J.K., and H.E. Stoddart

1983.   The Shallow-Water Gammaridean Amphipoda of the Subantarctic Islands of New Zealand and Australia: Lysianassoidea. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 13:279–394, 78 figures.

Meinert, F.

1893.   Crustacea Malacostraca. Det. Videnskabelige Udbytte af Kananbaaden “Hauchs” Togter i de Danske Have Indenfor Skagen i AArene 1883-86…C.G. Joh. Petersen…Copenhagen, 1893:147–232, 2 plates.

Nagata, K.

1965.   Amphipoda Gammaridea. In M. Iwasa and K. Nagata, editors, Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Fauna of Japan, pages 559–572. [Not seen.]

Nicholls, G.E.

1938.   Amphipoda Gammaridea. Australasian Antarctic Expedition 1911–14, Scientific Reports, C, Zoology and Botany, 2(4): 145 pages, 67 figures.

Norman, A.M.

1867.   Report of the Committee Appointed for the Purpose of Exploring the Coasts of the Hebrides by Means of the Dredge, Part II: On the Crustacea, Echinodermata, Polyzoa, Actinozoa, and Hydrozoa. British Association for the Advancement of Science, Report for 1866: pages 193–206.

1900.   British Amphipoda: Fam. Lysianassidae (concluded). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 7,5:196–214, plate 6.

Olerod, R.

1975.   The Mouthparts in Some North Atlantic Species of the Genus Orchomene Boeck (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Zoologica Scripta,4:205–216,63 figures.

Pfeffer, G.

1888.   Die Krebse von Sud-Georgian nach der Ausbeute der deutschen Station 1882–83.2. Tiel. Die Amphipoden. Jahrbuch Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten zu Hamburg, 5:76–142,3 plates.

Pirlot. J.M.

1933.   Les amphipodes de l'expedition du Siboga, deuxieme partie, Les amphipodes gammmarides, II: Les amphipodes de la mer profonde, 1 (Lysianassidae, Stegocephalidae, Stenothoidae, Pleustidae, Lepechinellidae). Siboga-Expedition, Monographie, 33c:115–167, figures 35–60.

Rabindranath. P.

1971.   Two New Gammaridean Amphipods (Crustacea) from the Gulf of Mannar, S. India. Hydrobiologia, 37:157–172,52 figures.

Reid, D.M.

1951.   Report on the Amphipoda (Gammaridea and Caprellidea) of the Coast of Tropical West Africa. Atlantide Report, 2:189–291, 58 figures.

Sars, G.O.

1883.   Oversigt af Norges Crustaceer med forelobige Bemaerkninger over de Nye eller Mindre bekjendte Arter. L (Podophthalmata-Cumacea-Isopoda-Amphipoda). Forhandlinger Videnskabsselskabs i Christiania, 18: 124 pages, 6 plates.

1895.   Amphipoda. In An Account of the Crustacea of Norway With Short Descriptions and Figures of All the Species, 1: viii + 711 pages, 240 plates, 8 supplementary plates.

Schellenberg, A.

1925.   Crustacea VIII: Amphipoda. In W. Michaelsen, editor, Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Meeresfauna Westafrikas, 3:111–204, 27 figures. Hamburg: L. Friedrichsohn & Co.

1926a. Die Gammariden der deutschen Sudpolar-Expedition 1901–1903. Deutsch Sudpolar-Expedition, 18:235–414,68 figures.

1926b. Amphipoda 3: Die Gammariden der deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition. Wissenschaften Ergebnisse Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition…“Valdivia” 1898–1899, 23:195–243,28 figures, plate 5.

1931.   Gammariden und Caprelliden des Magellangebietes, Sudgeorgiens und der Westantarktis. Further Zoological Results of the Swedish Antarctic Expedition 1901–1903,2(6):1–290,136 figures, 1 plate.

1935.   Die Amphipoden der norwegischen Expeditionen nach Ost-Gronland in den Jahren 1929, 1930, 1931 und 1932. Skrifter om Svalbard og Ishavet (Norges Svalbard-og Ishavs-Under-sokelser),66:9–39, 3 figures.

1942.   Krebstiere oder Crustacea IV: Flohkrebse order Amphipoda. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, Jena, 40:1–252,204 figures.

Sekiguchi, H., and Y. Yamaguchi

1983.   Scavenging Gammaridean Amphipods from the Deepsea Floor. Bulletin of the Faculty of Fisheries, Mie University, 10:1–14, 6 figures.

Sheard, K.

1938.   The Amphipod Genera Euonyx, Syndexamine and Paradexamine. Records of the South Australian Museum, 6:169–186,9 figures.

Shoemaker, C.R.

1920.   The Amphipods of the Canadian Arctic Expediton, 1913–1918. Report of the Canadian Arctic Expediton 1913–1918, 7E: 30 pages, 6 figures, with appendix.

1930a. The Amphipoda of the Cheticamp Expedition of 1917. Contributions to Canadian Biology and Fisheries, new series, 5(10): 141 pages, 54 figures.

1930b. The Lysianassid Amphipod Crustaceans of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in the United States National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 77(2827): 19 pages, 10 figures.

1942.   Amphipod Crustaceans Collected on the Presidential Cruise of 1938. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 101(11): 52 pages, 17 figures.

1945.   Amphipoda of the United States Antarctic Service Expedition 1939–1941. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 89:289–293, 2 figures.

1955.   Amphipoda Collected at the Arctic Laboratory, Office of Naval Research, Point Barrow, Alaska, by G.E. MacGinitie. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 128(1): 78 pages, 20 figures.

Shulenberger, E., and J.L. Barnard

1976.   Amphipods from an Abyssal Trap Set in the North Pacific Gyre. Crustaceana, 31:241–258,7 figures.

Sivaprakasam. T.E.

1968.   Amphipoda from the East Coast of India, Part I: Gammaridea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India, 8:82–122,14 figures.

Sowinsky, V.K.

1898.   Vysshiia rakoobraznyia (Malacostraca) Bosfora, po materialam’ sobrannym” d-rom” A.A. Ostroumovym’ v’ 1892 i 93 gg, I: Amphipoda i Isopoda. Zapiski Kievskago Obshchestva Est-estvoispytalelei, 15:447–518, plates 8–13.

Stasek, C.R.

1958.   A New Species of Allogaussia (Amphipoda, Lysianassidae) Found Living Within the Gastrovascular Cavity of the Sea-Anemone Anthopleura elegantissima. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 48:119–126,2 figures.

Stebbing, T.R.R.

1888.   Report on the Amphipoda Collected by H.M.S. Challenger During the Years 1873–76. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.MS. Challenger During the Years 1873–1876, Zoology, 29: iv + 1737 pages, 210 plates.

1906.   Amphipoda I. Gammaridea. Das Tierreich, 21: 806 pages, 127 figures.

Steele. D.H.

1969.   Additional Comments on the Genus Anonyx (Crustacea: Amphipoda) of the Atlantic and Arctic Coasts of North America. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 26:683–686.

Stephensen, K.

1923a. Revideret Fortegnelse over Danmarks Arter of Amphipoda (1. Del.). (Hyperiidea; Gammaridea: Lysianassidae). Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening, 76:5–20.

1923b. Crustacea Malacostraca, V: Amphipoda. I. Danish Ingolf-Expedition, 3(8):1–100,22 figures.

1925.   Crustacea Malacostraca, VI: Amphipoda. II Danish Ingolf-Expedition, 3:101–178, figures 23–53.

1928.   Storkrebs II, Ringkrebs 1: Tanglopper (Amfipoder). In Danmarks Fauna, Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening, 399 pages, 93 figures.

1929.   Amphipoda. Die Tierwelt der Nord-und Ostee, Leipzig, 14(10, f): 188 pages, 43 figures.

1935.   The Amphipoda of N. Norway and Spitsbergen with Adjacent Waters. Tromso Museum Skrifter, 3(1):1–140,19 figures.

1938.   Amphipoda, Tanaidacea und Pycnogonida. Zoologische Ergebrisse der Reisen von Dr. Kohl-Larsen nach den Subantarktischen Inseln bei Neu-Seeland und nach Sud-Georgien, II. Senckenbergiana, 20:236–264, 5 figures.

1944.   Amphipoda: The Zoology of East Greenland. Meddelelser om Gronland, 121(14): 165 pages, 18 figures.

Thurston, M.H.

1972.   Two New Species of Orchomene Boeck (Crustacea: Amphipoda) from the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and Graham Land. British Antarctic Survey Bulletin, 30:51–63,6 figures.

1974a. Crustacea Amphipoda from Graham Land and the Scotia Arc, Collected by Operation Tabarin and the Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey, 1944–59. British Antarctic Survey, Scientific Reports,85: 89 pages, 28 figures.

1974b. The Crustacea Amphipoda of Signy Island, South Orkney Islands. British Antarctic Survey Scientific Reports, 71: 133 pages, 43 figures.

1979.   Scavenging Abyssal Amphipods from the North-East Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology, 51:55–68,4 figures.

Toulmand, A.

1964.   Les amphipodes des facies sableux intertidaux de Roscoff. Apercus faunistiques et ecologiques. Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 5:319–342,10 figures.

Vader, W.

1969.   Notes on a Collection of Amphipoda from the Trondheimsfjord Area. Kunglia Videnskabers Selskabs Skrifter, 1969(3): 20 pages, 6 figures.

Walker, A.O.

1903.   Amphipoda of the ‘Southern Cross’ Antarctic Expedition. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 29:38–64, plates 7–11.

1906.   Preliminary Descriptions of New Species of Amphipoda from the ‘Discovery’ Antarctic Expedition, 1902–1904. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 7,17:452–458.

1907.   Crustacea, III: Amphipoda. National Antarctic Expedition, British Museum (Natural History), 3:1–39,13 plates.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SMITHSONIAN SERIES PUBLICATION

Manuscripts intended for series publication receive substantive review (conducted by their originating Smithsonian museums or offices) and are submitted to the Smithsonian Institution Press with Form SI-36, which must show the approval of the appropriate authority designated by the sponsoring organizational unit. Requests for special treatment—use of color, foldouts, case-bound covers, etc.—require, on the same form, the added approval of the sponsoring authority.

Review of manuscripts and art by the Press for requirements of series format and style, completeness and clarity of copy, and arrangement of all material, as outlined below, will govern, within the judgment of the Press, acceptance or rejection of manuscripts and art.

Copy must be prepared on typewriter or word processor, double-spaced, on one side of standard white bond paper (not erasable), with 1″ margins, submitted as ribbon copy (not carbon or xerox), in loose sheets (not stapled or bound), and accompanied by original art. Minimum acceptable length is 30 pages.

Front matter (preceding the text) should include: title page with only title and author and no other information, abstract page with author, title, series, etc., following the established format; table of contents with indents reflecting the hierarchy of heads in the paper, also, foreword and/or preface, if appropriate.

First page of text should carry the title and author at the top of the page; second page should have only the author's name and professional mailing address, to be used as an unnumbered footnote on the first page of printed text.

Center heads of whatever level should be typed with initial caps of major words, with extra space above and below the head, but no other preparation (such as all caps or underline, except for the underline necessary for generic and specific epithets). Run-in paragraph heads should use period/dashes or colons as necessary.

Tabulations within text (lists of data, often in parallel columns) can be typed on the text page where they occur, but they should not contain rules or numbered table captions.

Formal tables (numbered, with captions, boxheads, stubs, rules) should be submitted as carefully typed, double-spaced copy separate from the text, they will be typeset unless otherwise requested. If camera-copy use is anticipated, do not draw rules on manuscript copy.

Taxonomic keys in natural history papers should use the aligned-couplet form for zoology and may use the multi-level indent form for botany. If cross referencing is required between key and text, do not include page references within the key, but number the keyed-out taxa, using the same numbers with their corresponding heads in the text.

Synonymy in zoology must use the short form (taxon, author, year:page), with full reference at the end of the paper under “Literature Cited.” For botany, the long form (taxon, author, abbreviated journal or book title, volume, page, year, with no reference in “Literature Cited”) is optional.

Text-reference system (author, year:page used within the text, with full citation in “Literature Cited” at the end of the text) must be used in place of bibliographic footnotes in all Contributions Series and is strongly recommended in the Studies Series “(Jones. 1910:122)” or “…Jones (1910:122).” If bibliographic footnotes are required, use the short form (author, brief title, page) with the full citation in the bibliography.

Footnotes, when few in number, whether annotative or bibliographic, should be typed on separate sheets and inserted immediately after the text pages on which the references occur. Extensive notes must be gathered together and placed at the end of the text in a notes section

Bibliography, depending upon use, is termed “Literature Cited,” “References,” or “Bibliography.” Spell out titles of books, articles, journals, and monographic series For book and article titles use sentence-style capitalization according to the rules of the language employed (exception: capitalize all major words in English). For journal and series titles, capitalize the initial word and all subsequent words except articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. Transliterate languages that use a non-Roman alphabet according to the Library of Congress system. Underline (for italics) titles of journals and series and titles of books that are not part of a series. Use the parentheses/colon system for volume (number): pagination: “10(2):5–9.” For alignment and arrangement of elements, follow the format of recent publications in the series for which the manuscript is intended. Guidelines for preparing bibliography may be secured from Series Section, SI Press

Legends for illustrations must be submitted at the end of the manuscript, with as many legends typed, double-spaced, to a page as convenient.

Illustrations must be submitted as original art (not copies) accompanying, but separate from, the manuscript Guidelines for preparing art may be secured from Series Section. SI Press All types of illustrations (photographs, line drawings, maps, etc.) may be intermixed throughout the printed text They should be termed Figures and should be numbered consecutively as they will appear in the monograph. If several illustrations are treated as components of a single composite figure, they should be designated by lowercase italic letters on the illustration; also, in the legend and in text references the italic letters (underlined in copy) should be used: “Figure 9b.” Illustrations that are intended to follow the printed text may be termed Plates, and any components should be similarly lettered and referenced: “Plate 9b.” Keys to any symbols within an illustration should appear on the art rather than in the legend.

Some points of style: Do not use periods after such abbreviations as “mm, ft, USNM, NNE.” Spell out numbers “one” through “nine” in expository text, but use digits in all other cases if possible. Use of the metric system of measurement is preferable; where use of the English system is unavoidable, supply metric equivalents in parentheses. Use the decimal system for precise measurements and relationships, common fractions for approximations Use day/month/year sequence for dates: “9 April 1976.” For months in tabular listings or data sections, use three-letter abbreviations with no periods: “Jan, Mar, Jun.” etc Omit space between initials of a personal name: “J.B. Jones.”

Arrange and paginate sequentially every sheet of manuscript in the following order: (1) title page. (2) abstract, (3) contents, (4) foreword and/or preface, (5) text. (6) appendixes, (7) notes section, (8) glossary. (9) bibliography (10) legends, (11) tables. Index copy may be submitted at page proof stage, but plans for an index should be indicated when manuscript is submitted.