plates set on edge.” This they described as a new genus Kuria, having Bircenna as its nearest ally, and, as they were not satisfied with the position of the latter under the Phliadidæ, they simply marked the genus “incertæ sedis.”

Mr. Walker wrote to me at the time he was examining his Kuria, giving the points in which it differed from Bircenna, and asking for further information as to the uropoda and telson, but as my original dissection of the terminal segments of the pleon has not been preserved, and I had at the time no other specimens available, I could only refer to my figure, which showed an undivided triangular telson.

In 1906 Monsieur Edouard Chevreux established a new genus Wandelia for a small amphipod found by the French Antarctic Expedition (1903–5) at Port Charcot and Wandel Island, which he said came very close to Bircenna, but differed from it in the uropoda, and in having the telson divided to the base. He placed the genus in the Phliantidæ, which, however, he wrote Philiasidæ, but pointed out that the completely divided telson separated it from all the other genera of the family. M. Chevreux apparently had not seen Mr. Walker's paper, for he makes no reference to Kuria.

As Wandelia evidently resembled Bircenna even more closely than Kuria did, though like the latter it possessed a completely divided telson, I was very anxious to get further specimens to see if my original description was really correct. I did not succeed in doing this till November, 1908, when I secured another small specimen from Lyttelton Harbour, and was able to examine the point carefully. The last segments of the pleon are greatly shortened, and it is difficult to make out the exact condition of the last segment and of its appendage, but I find that the telson is distinctly formed of two parts, and is consequently in harmony with that of Kuria and Wandelia, and I therefore hasten to majce the correction. So far as I can make out, each half is as deep as broad, and is triangular in vertical section as well, as horizontally, and consequently the one half, which alone is shown in my figure, is nearly symmetrical when seen from above, and therefore aroused no suspicion that it was only half the telson; and Mr. Stebbing, who dissected a specimen when preparing his generic diagnosis, published in the Trans. Linn. Soc., Zool. vii, p. 421, in 1899, seems to have been equally unaware that the telson had been incorrectly described.

There can be no doubt that Wandelia is identical with Bircenna, and, indeed, Wandelia crassipes is specifically not very different from Bircenna fulva. The genus Kuria differs in a few points—e.g., in having the body laterally compressed and the 3rd uropoda less modified—and should perhaps be regarded as a separate genus, though evidently very closely allied to Bircenna.

After mentioning that Stebbing had placed Bircenna in the family Phliantidæ, Walker says that “it seems somewhat out of place with such genera as Pereionotus, Iphinotus, &c.” In general appearance it certainly looks very unlike these dorso-ventrally flattened genera, and Kuria, which is somewhat laterally compressed, is still more unlike them, and both genera differ from the rest of the family in having the telson double or deeply cleft. In other respects, however, they agree closely with Stebbing's diagnosis of the family. The genus Phlias, from which the family takes its name, also differs greatly in general appearance from the genera named above, and resembles Kuria in having the body somewhat laterally compressed; but, as a small amount of lateral compression in the one case and of dorsoventral compression in the other make the general aspect of the two forms