
Stebbing, 1906: 230.
Barnard, 1932: 142.
“Pleon segment 4 dorsally dentate. Antenna 1 the shorter, accessory flagellum strongly developed. Mandible, cutting edge dentate, accessory plate on both mandibles, spines of spine-row short, palp slender with less difference in length than usual between the joints. Maxilla 1, inner plate small, with 1 or 2 setae, outer plate with 10 spines, palp large. Maxilla 2, inner plate the wider. Maxillipeds, outer plates narrow, reaching little beyond 1st joint of elongate palp. Gnathopods 1 and 2, 5th joint produced into a considerable lobe, 6th joint large, oval, finger long, more or less serrate on inner margin. Uropod 3, rami 1-jointed.”—Stebbing.
A similar correction has to be made here to the remarks about pleon dentation; “pleon segment 4 often dorsally dentate” would probably meet the need, although “pleon segments usually dorsally dentate” might be a further improvement.
Barnard has spoken of the unsatisfactory state of this genus, and Stebbing (1888) equally as candidly of its “soporific effect”. Both statements are very true. I have not been able to elucidate the confusion very much, and because

of the limited nature of the material, I have not been able to follow up Barnard's suggestions (1932) about the shape of the epistome. I have sorted out the New Zealand material available and find myself with what I consider four distinct species, one of these occurring in two forms. There are two difficulties which occur with this material. The first is in deciding which characteristics are of specific value within the genus; and the second is in establishing the precise relationships of the New Zealand material with previously described species. Generally speaking, I have accepted the same criteria as Schellenberg (1931). In particular, I have accepted the stability of the epimeral plates despite suggestions to the contrary by Barnard (1930: 365) and others because it has not yet been proved that their shape is variable in this genus although there are a number of records of differences. I do not discount these records, but the general similarity of species suggests the possibility of different species being confused in these particular instances. The remarkable stability of the 3rd epimeral plate throughout the order as a specific criterion makes me hesitate to accept variability without very good reason. The dorsal spination is more open to criticism, but it does seem to have some considerable specific value, although it is a characteristic to be used with caution. The number of setae on the inner plate of the first maxilla used by Pirlot (1939) seems to me, after reviewing my material, to have also a limited application. However, some other characteristics appear to have value, and to have been overlooked previously.
The serration or otherwise of the second peraeopod sideplate posterior margin appears constant as does the spination or setation of the propod. The number of teeth on the dactylos of the gnathopods varies slightly but does seem to be of some specific value. I do not think the number of teeth on the outer plate of the first maxilla is sufficiently constant to be used as a specific criterion.
Certain information which I would like for the older established species is not available from the literature; consequently I cannot be completely happy about the following identifications but, if my assumptions as to the stability of the epimeral plates are correct, most of the difficulties disappear.
| 1 | Epimeral plate 3 has no posterodistal incision | 2 | |
| Epimeral plate 3 has posterodistal incision or notch | 3 | ||
| 2 | Pleon segments 1 and 2 usually weakly tridentate; gnathopod 2 broadly convex with small median concavity on palm; sideplate of peraeopod 2 has smooth posterior margin; peraeopod 5 basos anterior margin not strongly lobed in adult male, posterior margin minutely serrate | L. aequabilis Stebbing, 1888 | |
| Pleon segments 1 and 2 usually strongly quinquedentate; gnathopod 2 in adult male distally narrow, strongly concave palm; sideplate of peraeopod 2 has notch in middle of posterior margin; peraeopod 5 basos anterior margin strongly lobed proximally in adult males, posterior margin deeply serrate | L. dubia (Haswell). 1880 | ||
| 3. | Epimeral plate 3 has 2 teeth posterodistally | L. hansoni n.sp. | |
| Epimeral plate 3 has simple notch posterodistally | 4 |

| 4. | Urosome segments 1 and 2 have strong tooth dorsally; peraeopod 2 propod posterior margin has fine setae, no comb-pectination; gnathopods 1 and 2 have 0 and 5 teeth respectively on dactylos | L. barhami n.sp. | |
| Not combined as above | 5 | ||
| 5 | Pr. 1 and 2, propod has about 11 strong spines on otherwise naked posterior margin | L. akaroica var. akaroica, n.sp. et n.var. | |
| Pr. 1 and 2, propod posterior margin has about 7 fine setae, margin between them finely-combed | L. akaroica var. maria n.var. |
Liljeborgia aequabilis Stebbing, 1888. (Figs. 105–138)
