Description of Female.

Second Gnathopod. Merus width ½ length; posterodistal angle almost right-angled; with small acute tooth, free distal margin fringed with long setae. Carpus basically subtriangular, short convex anterior margin ½ basos length, 2 or 3 strong setae on anterodistal angle; posteriorly produced in long narrow distally convex lobe between propod and merus so carpus is nearly as wide as basos is long; posterior margin of lobe strongly setose with 4 or 5 strong spines. Propod ovate, almost subtriangular, a little longer than basos, a few long slender setae on convex anterior margin, a few on surface, a few long slender and several very small marginal setae on straight palm which occupies distal ⅔ of posterior margin, is denned posteriorly by an obtuse angle and about 5 stout seta-tipped spines in 2 pairs with a single spine proximally. Stout dactylos as long as palm. ⅔ propod length, curved, several single marginal setae.

Locality. D'Urville Rock, Auckland Harbour, New Zealand.

Hypotype. Slides C.49, Chilton Collection.

Distribution. New Zealand; Sooloo Sea (Dana); Ambon, Manipa Is., Banda (Pirlot).

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

Remarks. These specimens appear to differ from E. brasiliensis as figured by Chevreux and Fage (1925: 353, Fig. 360) and by Sars (E. abditus, 1895: 602, pl. 215) in the shape of the third peraeopod basos. If, as Chilton suggests, this is due to growth differences, it seems remarkable that other workers have not drawn greater attention to it—certainly Sars does not show so well developed a process and none of the other workers show it developed to the extent found in the New Zealand specimens. Both Sars and Chevreux and Fage were dealing with specimens of 6 and 7 mm. whereas the process is well developed in New Zealand specimens of 5/12 mm. According to Stebbing's key (1906) then, the New Zealand specimens fall into E. pugnax and in this they agree well with Dana's original figures. Enequist (1949) has some pertinent remarks concerning the differences between E. hunteri and E. difformis and concludes that “It seems by no means surprising that Ericthonius under entirely different climatic conditions (large annual temperature amplitude) can complete its development with quicker moults and inconspicuous growth in size” (p. 345).

On this difference alone, I am by no means sure that the species are distinct, but if they are not, then the specific name by law of priority should be E. pugnax (cf. Stebbing, 1906). E. pugnax was described by Dana in 1852, and the second description also takes page preference over E. brasiliensis described for the first time in the same work (1853 & 1855). Therefore I have no hesitation in claiming these New Zealand specimens to be E. pugnax.

I am grateful to Dr. Shoemaker for drawing my attention to Pirlot's remarks on this species. Speaking of E. pugnax specimens taken by the “Siboga” Expedition (Pirlot, 1938) he says: “Dans cette population de soixante quatre