a - w). ie : ET Ni Py | of Ph et 1 Mi L > Wide 7 J mt a if > al ; + LL Je been SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION MUSEUM OF NAT URAL His FO RR ¥ UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 The Caprellidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda) of the Western North Atlantic JOHN C. McCAIN Research Associate, Department of Oceanography, Oregon State University SoMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS WASHINGTON, D.C. 1968 Publications of the United States National Museum The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin. In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the field of anthropology, biology, geology, history, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the various subjects. The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902, papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium. This work forms number 278 of the Bulletin series. Frank A. TAYLor Director, United States National Museum U. 8S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1968 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.O. 20402 - Price 70 cents (paper cover) Contents Page CI NGWIGMPINGIIN 0052 a ete ae eka ee eee soa vI ECNCNTSCTRIRSTDUO ERED ae Di pe Bs ls aed ye ne ey ee ee ene 1 ENA ONOMIC RO ChlON Se ee RSE A a as ee ek etd Sas hes 2 SAK ONOMIC COSTA CUClS meee a aie ee eee ee ee ae 2 Phisirations and MeasiremiCntes 2.12 cone nas See eeee es ase = 6 Key to the Caprellidae of the western North Atlantic__.__..-__------ 6 AeuImeuG Spr0sd DOCK (ES. 2,304) oo seas aes eo eee 8 Aeginina longicornis (Kroyer) (figs. 4-7, 54)__-------- See ae 13 Caprella andreae Mayer, new rank (figs. 8, 9, 55).------------------- 19 Coprelin Dern asin Rel mens 2 er ot eee ecamcnweas 22 Caprella danilevskii Czerniavski (figs. 10, 11, 55)--------------------- 22 Conrellacquiliora Say (fitse 12519, Oo) < ono be Sanco eca elds k- 25 Capreila inearis (Linnaeus) (figs. 14,22, 51)... ...2.-.2-4---2--.- 30 Canreila langvmanus Dulin psON.. 25.4 Sacaeee ase eo oo3. foe aes 33 Caonrella penaniis..Leacn: (es) 10, 16) Ol) 2sos-24 Leechs osu ede ees 33 (Caprelin sAnguined GOUM onsite nots aa he et ee eS 40 Caprelia tcaura: Templeton: fige. 1%, 13,00). 5 5 a ects ease 40 Caprella septentrionalis Krgyer (figs. 19-22, 51)_--------------------- 44 Caprella unica Mayer (figs. 23, 24, 55).....------------------------ 49 Dewtellacatijornica Mayer (fig. 52)i22_ 2. 22a ose eee ase lease sls 54 Deutella mayert Stebbing (figs. 25, 26, 52)__--.-_---------------- oe 54 Fallotritella biscaynensis, new genus, new species (figs. 27, 28, 53)_-_--- 58 Hemiaegina minuta Mayer (figs. 29, 30, 50).------------------------ 61 Hemiproto wigleyi, new genus, new species (figs. 31, 32c-e, 50)__-----_- 65 Luconacia incerta Mayer (figs. 33-35, 52).__------------------------ 68 Mayerella limicola Huntsman (figs. 36, 50)..__---------------------- 73 Mayerella redunca, new species (figs. 37, 38, 50)---------- Joos Laseeeis 75 Metaprotella hummelincki, new species (figs. 39, 40, 50)------------- ae 78 Paracaprella pusilla Mayer (figs. 32a—-b, 41, 42, 53)_---.-------------- 82 Paracaprella tenuis Mayer (figs. 43, 44, 53)_....--------------------- 86 Parvamous tunics 1. cumang WAV Cl cc ooo bSo coe tS sash sees 89 Phtisica antillensis (Mayer) (figs. 45, 54)____.------------ i cass asters 89 Phtisica marina Slabber (figs. 46, 47, 54, 56).._---------------------- 90 Proaeginina norvegica (Stephensen) (figs. 48, 54)--------------------- 97 Pseudaeginella antiguae Barnard__.-.-..--------------------------- 100 PE ee acl a eC ac Soe nn 100 ZOogeoeraph y=. 2-222. =... 2552.2 _- se I ee an pes fda 101 Relationship between the amphipod suborders Gammaridea and Caprel- eaves ey a eee re re Naa 107 eG iat ie CU ae ee ee ee ee oe 112 Acknowledgments I am indebted to many persons for study material of caprellids; to them I offer my sincere gratitude. In particular I should like to thank Dr. Torben Wolff (Universitetets Zoélogiske Museum, Copen- hagen) for lending me many of Mayer’s types, without which the value of this paper would be greatly diminished. I am grateful to Dr. Roland Wigley (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Laboratory, Woods Hole) for the use of his caprellid collections by the RV Gosnold from the entire Atlantic coast of the United States. These provided invaluable information on the distribution of many species and contributed several new records and a new genus. To Dr. P. Wagenaar Hummelinck (Zoélogisch Laboratorium, Utrecht) special thanks are due for making available his collection of the virtually unstudied West Indian caprellids. Dr. E. L. Bousfield (National Museum of Canada, Ottawa) has aided a great deal by lending me his collection from the Atlantic coast of the United States and by making helpful suggestions during this research. Drs. T. E. Bowman, H. H. Hobbs, Jr., and F. A. Chace, Jr. of the Division of Crustacea at the Smithsonian Institution were es- pecially helpful by reviewing the manuscript and acting as members of my consultative committee at The George Washington University. This study was made possible by a grant from the Smithsonian Institution Research Foundation and by a grant-in-aid-of-research from the Society of Sigma Xi. vI The Caprellidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda) of the Western North Atlantic’ Introduction The most important publications on the systematics of the caprel- lids are the three monographic treatments by Paul Mayer (1882, 1890, 1903). These indispensable works summarized all that was known of caprellid taxonomy at that time, including many western Atlantic species. Unfortunately, Mayer’s work complicated caprellid taxonomy by recognizing in some species, such as the composite species Caprella acutifrons, large numbers of varieties which appear by modern concepts to be full species. In other instances he took a rather narrow view of species. Although caprellid amphipods are abundant and familiar members of the marine benthos, western Atlantic species have received only limited and superficial study by taxonomists. Seventeen valid species have been reported from this area. Holmes (1905) briefly characterized the five species known from New England and Kunkel (1918) did the same for four Connecticut species, including one species not mentioned by Holmes. Recently, Steinberg and Dougherty (1957) reported nine species from the Gulf of Mexico, one of which was new. In my paper (1965) five species occurring in Virginia waters are reviewed. Both Pearse (1908) and Stebbing (1895) described new species from the West Indies and Huntsman (1915) described a new species from the Bay of Fundy. Including the papers mentioned above, some 50 pub- lications deal with the western Atlantic caprellids, the majority being faunal lists of local areas. This paper deals primarily with the systematics of the Caprellidae occurring from the tropical to boreal areas of the western North Atlantic, roughly from the Equator to Nova Scotia. The paucity of available material from the east coast of South America prevents consideration of species south of the Equator. North of Nova Scotia the caprellid fauna changes abruptly and it is, therefore, desirable to defer treatment of the caprellids from this area until the Arctic caprel- lid fauna can be considered in its entirety. In all, 28 species of caprellids are treated in this paper with 2 new genera, 4 new species, and 1 new rank described. 1 Modified from a dissertation submitted to The George Washington University in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 1 2 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 This work is based primarily on the collections of the Division of Crustacea, Smithsonian Institution. Extensive unidentified collections were obtained from the National Museum of Canada, Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory, University of Cape Town, Zodlogische Laboratorium in Utrecht, Duke University Marine Laboratory, and the Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting Center. In addition, I was able to spend 4 months collecting along the Gulf of Mexico and south- eastern Atlantic coasts of the United States. Through the cooperation of the U.S. Coast Guard, I was allowed to accompany the USCGC Madrona (buoy tender) on a cruise servicing buoys along the Virginia and North Carolina coasts. These buoys yielded large numbers of several species which aided in the study of intraspecific variation. ‘Taxonomic Section Taxonomic Characters Mayer (1882, 1890, 1903) usually used 11 characters to delineate caprellid genera. These were the number of articles in the flagellum of antenna 2, the presence or absence of swimming setae on antenna 2, the number of articles in the mandibular palp and the setal formula for the terminal article,the number of gill pairs, the number of appendage pairs of both the male and female abdomens, the number of articles in pereopods 3-5, the number of gill pairs, and the length ratio of the inner and outer lobes of the maxilliped. Occasionally he resorted to other characters such as the fusion of pereonites 6 and 7 in Meta- protella and Orthoprotella. This paper adds the position of the insertion of pereopod 5 and the presence or absence of a molar on the mandible. Body spination varies considerably within the same species and its value as a specific character is questionable. In Aeginina longicornis this variation is quite pronounced and has caused a considerable proliferation of names for what appear to be only infrasubspecific variants. Harrison (1940) found that body spination did not appear on Pseudoprotella phasma before the 10th instar, which lends support to my opinion that body spination is a questionable specific character. It should be noted that those species which are spinose are frequently covered with large amounts of detritus. Body spination may, there- fore, offer some protective advantage and could possibly be correlated with predatory pressure. The peduncle of antenna 1 is a useful character for the delineation of some species. The presence of setules sometimes distinguishes males of Caprella linearis (fig. 14b) from other related species. Inflation of the peduncular articles is exhibited in several species and is quite useful for the separation of Caprella andreae from other members of the Caprella acutifrons group. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 3 The number of articles in the flagellum of antenna 1 varies consider- ably, depending upon the size and sex of the individual. The greatest number of articles may be useful for characterizing some species with an unusually long flagellum. The relative lengths of the proximal and distal flagellar articles have been used to characterize some species but probably do not have generic significance. Mayer divided Caprella scaura into groups on the basis of the number of fused proximal articles of the flagellum; however, in most species this number is proportional to the size of the individual and is of little value. Most caprellid genera have 2 articles in the flagellum of antenna 2; however, some genera such as Phtisica and Hemiproto have more than 2. Phtisica lacks a molar on the mandible. The lack of a molar and the multiarticulate flagellum on antenna 2 may be correlated with the fact that Phtisica is frequently found in plankton samples and therefore subject to dietary habits different from those of benthic forms. Mayer (1903, p. 47) used the presence of swimming setae on antenna 2 to characterize TZritella. Later Dougherty and Steinberg (1953) described Tritella tenuissima which lacked swimming setae, and they expressed the opinion that the presence or absence of swimming setae was not a good generic character. Since 7. tenwissima shares more characters with Triliropus (p. 57) than with the members of 77itella, Mayer’s belief that the presence of swimming setae is a valid generic character seems justified. The mouthparts offer, in my opinion, some of the best, although virtually neglected, taxonomic characters. The mouthparts reflect feeding habits and thereby, at least to some extent, the niche of an organism. Mayer (1903, p. 13) admitted that he neglected the mouth- parts except for the proportions of the maxillipedal lobes and the mandibular palp. Regrettably, he (1890, p. 107; 1903, p. 73) believed that the mouthparts of the Caprella species were all quite similar and of little value in classification. Most of the mouthparts of Caprella species are similar; however, the lacinia mobilis of the right mandible offers a useful character for subdividing this large genus. The left lacinia mobilis is usually 5-toothed apically, while the right lacinia mobilis may be either 5-toothed, serrate, or smooth. Phtisica and allied genera have developed ? several accessory plates in addition to the lacinia mobilis, and these genera usually lack a molar (fig. 47i-j). This unusual type of mandible undoubtedly reflects genetic relation- ships and will probably form a basis for separation of the Caprellidae into subfamilies or other higher taxa. 2 Assuming that the caprellids arose from a podocerid type gammaridean having a typical mandible with incisor, lacinia mobilis, setal row, and molar. 4 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 As stated above Mayer used the mandibular palp as a generic character. Those caprellids which lack a mandibular palp such as Caprella have considerably more setation on the mouthparts, antennae, and gnathopods 1. This increase in setation could compensate for the loss of the cleaning ability of the mandibular palp. Very little is known of the dietary habits of those forms which bear a mandibular palp and only a little more is known of those that do not. The setal formula for the palp refers to the number of long, intermediate, and short setae on the terminal article. For example, the setal formula 1-x-y-1 indicates the presence of 1 long seta at either end of a row of a variable number of short setae (x) and also a variable number of intermediate setae (y). In addition to the mandible the maxilliped also offers some ne- glected characters which may be of generic significance. The distal margin of the inner lobe varies in shape from rounded to flattened and may bear a variety of tooth types, spines, and setae. As examples of the extremes of inner lobe diversity, the paired inner lobes of Phtisica and allied genera are as large as the outer lobes, almost com- pletely fused, and are armed with several unusually large teeth (fig. 47h) while the inner lobes of Paracaprella are much smaller than the outer lobes, not fused, and bear only a few setae (fig. 43e). The outer lobe of the maxilliped shows considerable variation in spination, serration, and setation. Such characters as the subterminal notch in Luconacia (fig. 35d) or the large serrations on the medial margin in Mayerella (fig. 37e) may have generic importance. However, in too few of the caprellid species have maxillipeds been adequately illustrated and described to permit evaluation. The palp of the maxilliped offers several characters which may possibly be of generic significance. Schurin (1935) used the reduction of the dactylus as one of the characters to separate his new genus, Eugastraulaz, from the genus Caprella; however, the value of this character is questionable. In Paracaprella and Deutella the distal end of the terminal article bears several large setae (fig. 43e). These large setae are not present in most other caprellid genera. Another character which may have generic importance is the presence of a distal pro- jection on the penultimate article as in Paracaprella (fig. 43e). The number of spines on the outer lobe of maxilla 1 varies among some genera. In Phtisica there are 6 spines (fig. 47f) whereas in Caprella there are 7 spines (fig. Se). Again it is regrettable that this character has not been examined in enough genera to comment on its value. Gnathopod 1 has several characters which may be of generic or at least specific value. In the western Atlantic species, the number of grasping spines on the propodus varies from 1-5 (compare figs. 38d, 8h, 47c) and seems to be fairly constant within each genus. Another character of gnathopod 1 which may prove to be important is the CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 5 presence or absence of serrations on the grasping margins of the dactylus and propodus. In Paracaprella both margins are serrate (fig. 41h) whereas in contrast, those of Hemiaegina are completely smooth (fig. 30b). The shape and ornamentation of gnathopod 2 has long been used as a specific character in the Amphipoda, and it is needless to comment on it here except that one must take into consideration the degree of variability this appendage shows at different growth stages. Mayer used the term “poison tooth” to refer to the large tooth on the palm of the propodus. There is evidence that glandular material is present near this tooth, and it appears to be venomous in nature (Wetzel, 1932, p. 387). I have used the term grasping spine when the major “tooth” of the propodus is a spine and have restricted the use of poison tooth to an eminence which is not delimited at its base or which has previously been designated a poison tooth. Usually grasping spines occur in pairs and when closed the tip of the dactylus fits between them. These spines are found on the gnathopods and the pereopods. The number of gill pairs was used by Mayer as a generic character. Undoubtedly this is an important character but perhaps too much value is placed on it since the gills show various stages of reduction. Some genera with 3 pairs of gills show a closer relation to genera with 2 pairs than to other genera with 3 pairs, as for example Dodecas and Dodecasella. The pereopods on pereonites 3-5 are reduced in many caprellid genera. Although the number of articles of these rudimentary append- ages is presently important for generic identification, it is often difficult to count the articles, particularly when the terminal article is small or shows some degree of fusion with the penultimate article. Since these appendages are rudimentary and show all degrees of reduction, their value as a generic character is questionable. In Mayerella redunca (p. 75) a female has 2 articles in pereopod 5 instead of the usual 3 and there can be no question that this specimen belongs to this species. The use of these pereopods as a generic character seems to mask the phylogenetic relationships of the genera, and it is my belief that the mouthparts provide a better concept of relation- ships. It should be noted that I follow the system of naming the pereopods according to the pereonites upon which they occur; i.e., pereopod 3 occurs on pereonite 3. This practice has not been consist- ently followed in the past; various authors (Barnard, Briggs, Guiler, and Huntsman) preferred to number these appendages beginning with pereonite 3. The abdomen presents one of the most difficult characters to use for identification. It is extremely small and hard to illustrate accu- 6 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 rately. Unfortunately, it has been one of the most important charac- ters and the correct generic determination usually depends upon elucidating its structure. Mayer stressed the importance of the abdomen by separating closely related genera such as Deutella and Luconacia primarily by differences in the abdomen. Mayer’s emphasis on this character is justified; however, due to its vestigial nature it suffers from the same criticism as pereopods 3-5. In dealing with the many stages of reduction of the appendages on the abdomen, Mayer was inconsistent in what he considered to be a ‘‘Klappe” or vanished appendage. This is especially true in those genera which do not bear true appendages but which have several setae or even a single seta borne on a type of flap or lobe. For an example of this, compare Mayer’s (1903) figures of the abdomen of the Triliropus male (pl. 9 fig. 70), which he says bears one-half pair of appendages, with that of the Pseudoproto male (pl. 9 fig. 52) which he claims to be without appendages. Both abdomens have lobes with several setae; therefore, due to this inconsistency I have refrained from using Mayer’s termi- nology of one-half appendage pairs but have instead given the number of recognizable appendages and have described the lobes. Illustrations and Measurements Illustrations of the whole mounts were made by the use of a micro- projector and those of dissected appendages with a camera lucida. Pencil sketches were first made which were later copied on Ethulon tracing film. All scales on the figures equal 1 mm for the whole mount. Measurements of the total length refer to the length of a line drawn from the anterior portion of the cephalon between the insertions of antennae 1 and 2, through the midlateral portion of each pereonite, to the posterior tip of the abdomen. Key to the Caprellidae of the Western North Atlantic (See figure 1 for explanation of characters.) 1. Mandible with palp or setae representing vestige of palp ...... 2 Mandible without palp 2. a 4, <3. 4 /o 6 Je a0 Sine one See 17 2.(1). -Pereopods Sand 4:absent.. 24. so eGe ow sw ee ee ee oe ee eee 3 Pereopods 3:and:4 present .. ..2Gs b Bids) ois eee Sil ee 6 3.(2) Abdomen with only pair of lobes . . Pseudaeginella antiguae (p. 100) Abdomen withappendages oo. 3. 3 ous Sw ss els ge sees 4 4.(3) Abdomen with pair of appendages and pair of lobes. Aeginella spinosa (p. 8) Abdomen with 2 pairs of appendages. . ........2-.2++-se-. 5 5.(4) Abdomen with only 2 pairs of appendages. Proaeginina norvegica (p. 97) Abdomen with 2 pairs of appendages and pair of lobes. Aeginina longicornis (p. 13) 6.(2) 7.(6) 8.(6) 9.(8) 10.(9) 11.(9) 12.(11) 13.(12) 14.(12) 15.(8) 16.(15) 17.(1) 18.(17) 19.(18) 20.(19) 21.(18) 22.(21) 23. (22) CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC i Pereopods: 3 and 4 I-segmented’ 5 gc. 5 «6 kee SG Awe ed Pereopods 3 and 4 2- or 6-segmented. ............. =. 8 Pereonites 6 and 7 fused. . . . . . Metaprotella hummelincki (p. 78) Pereonites 6 and 7 not fused. . . . . Fallotritella biscaynensis (p. 58) Pereopods 3 and 4 2-segmented. . . . .......42++42. 9 Pereopods 3 and 4 6-segmented. . .........4.2.+.442.2.2.-. 15 Pereopod 5 2- or 3-segmented .........4...2...... 10 Pereopod 5 6-segmented. . . . . Stace: dau ak oe CEE Abdominal appendage of male ae ei in donors. 6 bones Mayerelia limicola (p. 73) Abdominal appendage of male much longer than penes, recurved at tip. Mayerella redunca (p. 75) Pereopod 5 inserted near midlength of pereonite 5. Luconacia incerta (p. 68) Pereopod 5 inserted in posterior part of pereonite5........ 12 Mandibular palp reduced; when 3-segmented, terminal article minute. 13 Mandibular palp not reduced, 3-segmented, terminal article not minute. 14 Mandibular palp represented by single seta; males with large triangular projection on anteroventral margin of pereonite 2, basis of gnathopod 2 with proximal knob on posterior margin. Paracaprella pusilla (p. 82) Mandibular palp represented by knob with seta or with several reduced articles; males with small projection on anterolateral margin of pereonite 2, basis of gnathopod 2 without proximal knob. Paracaprella tenuis (p. 86) Cephalon with dorsalspine . . .. . . . Deutelia californica (p. 54) Cephalon without dorsal spine. . . . . . . . Deutella mayeri (p. 54) Abdomen of male with 2 pairs of appendages, females with 1 pair. Hemiproto wigleyi (p. 65) Abdomen of male with 3 pairs of appendages, females with 2 pairs . . 16 Carpus of gnathopod 2 longer than merus . . Phtisica antillensis (p. 89) Carpus of gnathopod 2 shorter than merus. . . Phtisica marina (p. 91) Pereopods 3 and 4 I-segmented . . . . . Hemiaegina minuta (p. 61) PeredpoGs: o tidied BHGeite we es once ah tec agar a ice er ce. er we Pereopods 5-7 without grasping spines ............. 19 Pereopods 5-7 with grasping spines... . ee ak, & “ad ee Cephalon with anteriorly directed triangular Poeun: Caprella penantis variant (p. 35) Cephalon without anteriorly directed projection ... ana & 20 Abdomen of male with hooked papillae at tip of cppen dare: female with small palplike appendage. . . . . . . Caprella danilevskii (p. 22) Abdomen of male without hooked papillae on appendage, female without palplike appendage .. . . . . . . Caprella unica (p. 49) Cephalon with large anteriorly directed dorsal spine or projection . . 22 Cephalon without dorsal spine or with nonanteriorly directed spine . . 24 Cephalon with sharp anterodorsally directed spine, males with up to 9 fused articles in flagellum of antenna 1. . . Caprella scaura (p. 40) Cephalon with anteriorly directed triangular projection, males with less than 4 fused articles in flagellum of antenna . . . bate a Ao Palm of propodus of pereopods 5-7 convex. . Caprelln gadvene (p. 19) Palm of propodus of pereopods 5-7 concave . Caprelia penantis (p. 33) 8 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 24.(21) Ventral spine present between insertions of gnathopods 2. Caprella equilibra (p. 25) Ventral spine not present between insertions of gnathopods 2. . . . 25 25.(24) Propodus of gnathopod 2 with small spine on inner surface near poison tooth ..... soe eh toe, GO Propodus of eaaihopod 2 yathout ‘amma eemen on inner surface near poison tooth .... . . Caprella equilibra variant (p. 29) 26.(25) Ratio of total length to feet aE basis of gnathopod 2 greater than 13.0; dorsal surface of pereonites 1—4 usually spinose, cephalon with at least 1 large spine. . . . . . Caprella septentrionalis (p. 44) Ratio of total length io lever of basis of gnathopod 2 smaller than 13.0; dorsal surface of pereonites 1-4 usually smooth, cephalon infrequently with small spine. . ........ . . Caprella linearis (p. 30) Aeginella Boeck, 1861 Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae absent; mandibular palp 3-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1-x-1, molar present; outer lobe of maxilliped larger than inner lobe; gills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4 absent, pereopod 5, 6-segmented; abdomen of male and female with pair of appendages and pair of lobes, Type-species: Aeginella spinosa Boeck, 1861 (by monotypy). Remarks.—The genus Aeginella is very closely related to Aeginina and Proaeginina, differing from them only by the structure of the abdomen. There is a gradation from 1 pair of appendages with lobes, 2 pairs of appendages, to 2 pairs of appendages with lobes in the series Aeginella—Proaeginina—Aeginina. Aeginella spinosa Boeck, 1861 Fieures 2, 3, 54 Aeginella spinosa Boeck, 1861, pp. 673-674; 187la, pp. 272 (192)-273 (198); 1873-76, pp. 684-686, pl. 32, fig. 4.—M. Sars, 1863, pp. 290-291.— Mayer, 1882, p. 36; 1890, pp. 36-37, pl. 1, fig. 24, pl. 5, figs. 30-33; 1903, p. 61.— G. Sars, 1886, pp. 70, 89; 1895, pp. 653-654, pl. 235, fig. 1—Norman, 1886, p. 26; 1905a, p. 26.—Hansen, 1887b, pp. 172-173; 1895, p. 130.— Vanhéffen, 1897, p. 213.—Nordgaard, 1905, p. 185.—Stephensen, 1913a, pp. 222-223; 1916, p. 295; 1929a, p. 178, fig. 332; 1929b, pp. 19, 34; 1933, pp. 60, 77; 1935, p. 118; 1940, p. 69; 1942, pp. 429-430, 502, 503; 1944a, pp. 48-49, map 9; 1944b, pp. 135-136, 148, 159, 162.—Derjugin, 1915, pp. 453, 456.—Schneider, 1924 (1926), p. 59.—McCain, 1966, p. 92. DraGnosis.—Since this genus is monotypic, the characters of the genus are diagnostic for the species. DescripTrion.—Body rather robust, spinose; cephalon with anterior projection, separated from pereonite 1 by distinct suture. Pereonite 1 with dorsal anterior spine. Dorsal surface of pereonite 2 with pair of spines at midlength of pereonite and single posterior spine, inser- tion of gnathopod 2 with small spine, anterolateral margin produced CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC a Cephal on at ni Si < ™. dA \ \ — Pre ny H ng : wy Yt i i) He \ : a - / Md palp oot ay See se Brood pouch palp LI 3 ——— Gill Pn3s— SF _ d= oy) outer lobe ee = AAO SEPP 5 Ke RY Pn4 appendages o lobes Abd ay inner lobe Mzx2 Md Figure 1.—Generalized caprellid: 4 (antenna), Abd (abdomen), G (gnathopod), Md (mandible), Mx (maxilla), Mxp (maxilliped), P (pereopod), Pn (pereonite). 10 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 into triangular projection. Dorsal surface of pereonite 3 with pair of anterior spines, sometimes reduced to small humps, pair of mid- posterior spines, and single posterior spine; anterolateral margin produced as in pereonite 2; lateral margin of pleura with anterior and posterior spines and spine above gills in males, females without posterior spine. Pereonite 4 similar to pereonite 3 in males, females without dorsal anterior spine. Dorsal surface of pereonite 5 similar to pereonite 3, pleura with only anterior spine and dorsally directed spine at base of pereopod 5. Pereonite 7 with dorsally directed spine at base of pereopod 7. Length of largest male 20 mm, female 16 mm. Setal formula for terminal article of mandibular palp 1-10-1 to 1-12-1. Left mandible with 5-toothed incisor, 5-toothed lacinia mobilis, setal row of 3 serrate setae, molar with plumose seta. Right mandible with 5-toothed incisor, lacinia mobilis serrate on cutting margin, setal row of 2 serrate setae, molar with plumose seta. Palp of maxilla 1 usually with 5 robust apical spines and several setae; outer lobe with 7 apical spines, usually bifid but sometimes more branches with increase in size of individual. Inner and outer lobes of maxilla 2 quite setose on apical margin and spines occasionally present. Outer lobe of maxilliped with 2 apical setae, 1 long apical spine, and up to 12 smaller marginal spines; inner lobe with 2 small spines and up to 12 apical setae, as many as 9 of which plumose; palp similar to that of Caprella. Propodus of gnathopod 1 triangular with 2 proximal grasping spines, grasping margin not distinctly serrate; grasping margin of dactylus serrate, particularly at tip. Propodus of gnathopod 2 quite robust, palm heavily setose with small proximal tooth, anterior margin with distal projection; dactylus not serrate. Gills subelliptical. Pereopods 3 and 4 absent. Pereopods 5-7, 6-segmented, palm of propodus with pair of proximal grasping spines. Abdomen of male and female with 1 pair of appendages and pair of setose lobes; in male appendage placed on raised projection and uniarticulate; in female, appendage neither on projection nor articulated. VARIATION.—This species appears to be quite constant in body spination with the exception of the first pair of spines on the dorsal surface of pereonite 4. These may be present as fully developed spines or as only small humps. Distripution.—Type-locality: Haugesund, Norway. Other records: Murman coast to Haugesund on the Norwegian coast, Spitsbergen, Faeroe Islands, Iceland, east and west coasts of Greenland. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 11 Ficure 2.—Acginella spinosa, male; a, lateral view; 6, right mandible; c, inner and outer lobes of maxilliped; d, maxilla 2; ¢, abdomen; f, maxilla 1; g, gnathopod 1; h, terminal article of mandibular palp. New records: Off Nova Scotia, 44°01’ N., 59°02.5’ W., 43°03’ N., 65°30’ W., and on the Banquereau Banks; off Cape Cod, 42°25’ N., 66°05’ W. Remarks.—This species is an Arctic one usually found in deeper water, to 1026 m. Its distribution is comparable to that of Pro- aeginina norvegica and Aeginina longicornis, the latter ranging far- 279-475—68——2 12 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 3.—Aeginella spinosa, female; a, lateral view; b, right mandible; c, maxilliped; d, gnathopod 1; ¢, maxilla 1; f, coxal plate of gnathopod 2; g, abdomen; h, gnathopod 2. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 13 ther south along the western Atlantic coast and usually being found in shallower water. Mayer (1903, p. 61) reported Aeginella spinosa from the asteroid, Brisinga, and this species has also been collected from red and brown algae and hydroids. Aeginina Norman, 1905 Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae absent; mandible with 3-segmented palp, setal formula for terminal article 1—x-1 or 1—x-1-x, molar present; outer lobe of maxilliped larger than inner lobe; gills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4 absent, pereopod 5, 6-segmented; abdomen of male and female with 2 pairs of biarticulate appendages and 1 pair of lobes. Type-species: Aegina longicornis Krgyer, 1842-43 (by monotypy). Aeginina longicornis (Kréyer, 1842-43) Ficurss 4-7, 54 Aegina longicornis Krgyer, 1842-48, pp. 509-515, pl. 7, figs. 1-12; 1846, pl. 24, fig. 3—Boeck, 1871la, p. 270 (190); 1873-76, pp. 677-679.—Liitken, 1875, p. 159.—Mayer, 1882, pp. 83-84, fig. 11, pl. 5, figs. 6-10; 1890, pp. 32- 35, pl. 5, figs. 27-29, pl. 6, figs. 9, 28; 1903, pp. 60-61.—Hansen,1887b, p. 171—Norman, 1886, p. 26; 1905a, p. 26—Stuxberg, 1882, p. 764.— Vanhoffen, 1897, p. 213—d’A. Thompson, 1901, p. 41—M. Rathbun, 1905, pp. 7, 76.—Briiggen, 1907, pp. 237-238.—Stephensen, 1913a, pp. 220-222; 1929b, p. 34.—Bousfield, 1958, p. 315. Aegina spinosissima Stimpson 1854 (1853), pp. 44-45.— Miers, 1877a, pp. 104- 105.—Norman, 1882, pp. 671, 684; 1886, p. 26; 1905a, p. 26.—Koelbel, 1886, p. 42.—Hansen, 1887a, p. 233; 1887b, p. 172.—Ohlin, 1895a, pp. xvii, xix, 60-62.—Vanhoffen, 1897, p. 213.—Whiteaves, 1901, p. 220.—M. Grieg, 1907, p. 551.—Calman, 1927, p. 42 (fig. 27). Caprella spinifera Bell, 1855, pp. 407-408, pl. 35, fig. 2.—Goés, 1866, p. 535. Aegina (Caprella) echinata Boeck, 1861, pp. 670-672. Aegina laevis Boecx, 1861, pp. 672-673; 1871a, p. 272 (192); 1873-76, pp. 682- 684, pl. 32, fig. 9. Caprella spinosissima Bate, 1862, pp. 361-362, pl. 57, fig. 3. Aegina echinata.—Boecx, 187la, pp. 271 (191)-272 (192); 1873-76, pp. 680- 682, pl. 32, fig. 6.—Liitken, 1875, p. 159.— Mayer, 1882, pp. 34-35.—Stux- berg, 1882, pp. 764, 780; 1887, p. 73.—G. Sars, 1895, pp. 651-652, pl. 234, fig. 2.—Stephensen, 1927a, pp. 147-148; 1928, p. 389, fig. 93 (5-7); 1929a, p. 178, fig. 331.—Gurjanova, 1929a, pp. 40-41, 46. Aegina spinifera.—Buchholz, 1874, pp. 270, 388.—G. Sars, 1885, pp. 228-230, pl. 18, fig. 5; 1886, pp. 70, 89.—Ives, 1892, p. 481.—Klinckowstrém, 1892, p. 91. Aegina Echinata.—Meinert, 1877-78, p. 168. Aegina longicornis f. nodosa Mayer, 1890, p. 33, pl. 5, fig. 29. Aegina longicornis f. typica Mayer, 1890, p. 33. Aegina longicornis f. spinifera Mayer, 1890, pp. 33-34.—Gurjanova, 1935, p. 78. Aeginella spinosissima.—Mayer, 1890, p. 37; 1903, p. 61.—Ortmann, 1901, pp. 154-155.—Stephensen, 1912, pp. 543-544; 1913b, p. 68. 14 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Aegina longicornis f. spinigera.—Hansen, 1895, p. 130. Aeginella longicornis.—Holmes, 1904 (1905), pp. 525-526.—Paulmier, 1905, p. 169, fig. 39.—Sumner, Osburn, and Cole, 1911 (1913), pp. 132, 134, 135, 656, chart 102.—Kunkel, 1918, pp. 175-176, fig. 53.—Allee, 1922, pp. 57, 58.— Dexter, 1944, p. 356.—Ferguson and Jones, 1949, p. 442. Aegina longicornis nodosa.—M. Rathbun, 1905, pp. 7, 76-77. Aegina longicornis spinifera.—M. Rathbun, 1905, pp. 7, 77. Aegina longicornis spinosissima.—M. Rathbun, 1905, pp. 7, 77. Aegina langicornis.—Briggen, 1909, pp. 42-43. Aeginina longicornis—Norman, 1905a, p. 46.—Stappers, 1911, pp. 74-76.— Shoemaker, 1930, p. 352 (134).—Procter, 1933, p. 256.—Stephensen, 1933, pp. 59-60, 77; 1940, pp. 69-70; 1942, pp. 430-431, 502, 503; 1944a, p. 49, chart X; 1944b, pp. 135, 148, 159, 162.—Gurjanova, 1936, pp. 568, 580, 588, 589; 1964, p. 313.—Elton, 1937, p. 433.—Dunbar, 1954, pp. 784, 788.— Bousfield, 1958, p. 322.—McCain, 1965, pp. 191-192, fig. 1a; 1966, p. 92.— Cerame Vivas and Gray, 1966, p. 263. Draenosis.—Since this genus is monotypic, the characters of the genus are diagnostic for the species. Description.—Body spination variable, smooth to quite spiny; cephalon separated from pereonite 1 by suture. Length of largest male 54 mm, female 34 mm, smallest ovigerous female 9 mm. Antenna 1 usually longer than body, flagellum with up to 26 articles. Antenna 2 setose and usually shorter than articles 1 and 2 of antenna 1. Mouthparts quite similar to those of typical Caprella (p. 18), lacinia mobilis of right mandible not distinctly 5-toothed but with several teeth and serrations. Propodus of gnathopod 1 with pair of grasping spines, grasping margins of dactylus and propodus only slightly serrate. Propodus of enathopod 2 with proximal poison tooth and distal notch, tooth, and rectangular projection, anterodistal margin with triangular projection; basis and ischium with anterodistal projections; carpus with postero- distal projection. Propodus of pereopods 5-7 with pair of proximal grasping spines. Abdomen of male and female with 2 pairs of biarticulate append- ages and pair of lobes, medial margin of appendages with numerous minute knobs. VariaTion.—The degree of spination of the body is variable. The most spiny form is illustrated in figure 4j, and there are various degrees of spination; some are almost smooth. Spination seems to vary from spinose in northern waters to smooth in southern; however, spiny forms have been found infrequently in the southern part of the range of this species. Figure 6 illustrates the relationship of pereonite length to total body length. The solid black lines represent individuals, and the dashed lines indicate the linear relationship between pereonite length CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 15 Ficure 4.—4eginina longicornis, male; a, lateral view; b, right mandible; c, left mandible; d, maxilla 1; ¢, terminal article of mandibular palp; f, abdomen; g, maxilliped; h, gnathopod 2; 1, gnathopod 1; 4, diagramatic representation of dorsal (middle) to lateral (edges) body spination, diameter of circle proportional to length of spine. 16 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 5.—Aeginina longicornis, female; a, lateral view; b, gnathopod 2; ¢, gnathopod 1; d, abdomen.. and total length. It is evident that pereonites 1 and 2 of both males and females increase in length at approximately the same rate. There- fore the statement made by many authors that pereonites 1 and 2 are elongated in males seems to be invalid. Distripution.—Type-locality: Near Frederikskiib, Greenland, at a depth of 22-29 m. Other records: Siberian Polar Sea to 140° E.; Kara Sea; Novaya Zemlya; Franz Josef Land; Spitsbergen; Murmansk; Barents Sea; Norway; Denmark; Faeroe Islands; Shetland Islands; Jan Mayen; Iceland; eastern and western coasts of Greenland; Baffin Bay; east coast of North America from Newfoundland to Oregon Inlet, North Carolina. New records: No records are available which extend the range of this species. Remarks.—This Arctic species is quite common in the northern parts of eastern North America. It is generally found in deeper water (to 2258 m) but has been collected frequently in shallow water. The habitat does not seem to be specific because it has been collected from green, red, and brown algae; sea grass; hydroids; bryozoans; and from the gut of the sea bass, Centropristis. The seasonal distribution of ovigerous females is illustrated in figure 7. The largest number of samples containing ovigerous fe- CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC bz ! / f / / 7 r r I i LE / LT ; | / | JY VIF }$ ——__- — ——_--— ++ to —-@ i. »——_ -—_o——_9 3} / a fi os N “<8 I / , ¥ / ea ar a : a UT I / / ie Z / a 264 I / / / / 4 4s ! / fg / 7 f 4 ae os 7+——_— ——-—+ -a_____--- —+. <_< / / / w 7 4 24 ; ! / 5 fe Xz . , = Ls Fens Te re 2 = a ve rae a i , oA ee / / : 7a 7 os === ware =" Se eee aa a" 2, t ii / / Gee 20 ! At ie * —6s— el a > ! / / / Cre 31 ee ma =F ty Total length (mn 4 Z re te 12 : / i Cia / / fo / ; f rs / f oon 10 / / / 4,°7 —— er 7 5 Wa i / OAS ' / 7 / / 7 a 8 ! / / y 7 “ SS Se aH, 4 : on 6 : ra. i Ma le ! f / iS 4 7 Lp rae i pig *- Female a lic PORE Ty 17 4 2 lif, lig @ ig a 4 6 8 10 12 Lh 16 18 20 2a 24 26 28 3U Cumulative pereonite length (mm) Ficure 6.—Aeginina longicornis, cumulative pereonite length plotted against total length. Roman numerals indicate pereonites; I includes both pereonite 1 and cephalon. Solid horizontal lines represent individuals. males was collected during August and September and the breeding season appears to extend from April to December. No ovigerous females were present in samples taken from January to March. Whether this is due to the fact that the caprellids do not breed during this period or simply that adequate samples were not taken, is not known. The varieties of this species which are found along the east coast of North America do not appear to be geographically or bathymetri- cally isolated from each other and so they probably do not represent subspecies. These varieties may represent the phenotypic expression of different degrees of spination influenced by such parameters as substrate, breeding season, or diet; however, such data are not available to me. 18 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 50 48 » 46 ca oS 3 e » 3 8 ev La e tat * e ° = 40 ° S Ss” g 38 . > 36 Q Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June ‘July ° Aug. “Sept. ° Oct. ° Nov." Dee. Ficure 7.—Aeginina longicornis, monthly and latitudinal distribution of ovigerous females. Caprella Lamarck, 1801 Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae usually pres- ent; mandibular palp absent, molar present; outer lobe of maxilliped larger or equal to inner lobe; gills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4 absent, pereopod 5, 6-segmented; abdomen of male with pair of appendages and pair of lobes, female with pair of lobes. Type-species: Cancer linearis Linnaeus, 1767 (subsequent designa- tion by Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953). Remarxs.—Mayer (1890, p. 107; 1908, p. 73) states that it is un- necessary to study in detail the mouthparts of members of this genus since the specific differences stand out much more clearly in other characters. I agree with this statement, hence, I have not included descriptions of the mouthparts other than the lacinia mobilis of the right mandible except for those appendages which exhibit variation. The typical mouthparts of Caprella may be characterized as follows: Mandible with 5-toothed incisor; left mandible with 5-toothed lacinia mobilis, right variable; setal row of left mandible with 3 serrate setae, right with 2 serrate setae; molar present with single small plumose seta. Outer lobe of maxilla 1 with 7 spines, palp with variable number of spines and setae. Lobes of maxilla 2 usually densely setose. Outer lobe of maxilliped with row of spines on medial margin and usually covered with numerous setae; inner lobe flattened apically with several spines and numerous simple and plumose setae; articles of palp usually heavily setose, grasping margin of dactylus finely toothed or serrate. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 19 The abdomen also appears to vary little in Caprella. In the males it bears a pair of uniramous appendages at its proximal end; laterally it has a pair of lobes. The surface of the abdomen is usually covered with numerous setae, and occasionally the ventral surface between the lobes is raised to form a hump. The female abdomen is similar to that of the male except that it lacks appendages. The propodus of ganthopod 1 is usually triangular in outline and invariably has a pair of proximal grasping spines. Caprella andreae Mayer, 1890, new rank Fieurss 8, 9, 55 Caprella acutifrons [not Latreille]—van Beneden, 1859, pp. 78-81, pl. 1, figs. 9-11; 1861, p. 145.—[?] Stock and Bolklander, 1952, p. 3. Caprella acutifrons f. Andreae Mayer, 1890, pp. 51, 55-56, pl. 2, fig. 38, pl. 4, fig. 56, 70-71; 1903, pp. 80-81.—Chevreux and de Guerne, 1893, p. 3.— d’A. Thompson, 1901, p. 41.—Stephensen, 1915, p. 53.—Chevreux and Fage, 1925, p. 452, fig. 430a.—Ruffo, 1938, p. 150 [in part].—Utinomi, 1947, pp. 71-72. Caprella acutifrons f. andreae—Stephensen, 1929a, p. 182. Driacnosis.—Cephalon with anteriorly directed triangular pro- jection, peduncle of antenna 1 robust in males, palm of propodus of pereopods 5-7 convex with medial grasping spines. Description.—Body smooth except for anteriorly directed tri- angular projection on cephalon, pleura developed on pereonites 3 and 4 in larger males. Length of largest male 12 mm, female 9 mm, smallest ovigerous female 7 mm. Peduncle of antenna 1 inflated in males, sparsely setose. Antenna 2 typical of genus. Mouthparts typical of genus, lacinia mobilis of right mandible 5-toothed. Gnathopod 1 typical of genus, dactylus serrate, propodus with 2 proximal grasping spines. Propodus of gnathopod 2 in males with proximal poison tooth and distal rectangular projection, palm densely setose; in females propodus with proximal poison tooth, distal pro- jection and small middistal projection; dactylus strong and con- stricted medially. Gills oval and usually quite large and inflated in males, females elliptical. Propodus of pereopods 5-7 with 2 grasping spines at midlength, palm convex. Abdomen typical of genus. VARIATION.—The inflation of antenna 1 and the development of pleura increase as the size of the individual increases, large males having an unusually enlarged antenna 1 and well-developed pleura. 20 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 8.—Caprella andreae, male lectotype; a, lateral view; b, gnathopod 2; ¢, pereopod 6; d, abdomen; e, maxilla 1; f, maxilliped; g, maxilla 2; A, gnathopod 1; 7, right mandible; 7, left mandlble. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 21 Ficure 9.—Caprella andreae, female allolectotype; a, abdomen; J, lateral view; c, gnathopod 2. Distripution.—Type-locality: 38°10’ N., 64°20’ W. (see remarks). Other records: North Sea; Netherlands; Belgium; Portugal; between Portugal and the Azores; Mediterranean coast of Spain; Gulf of Lione; St. Raphael, France; Naples, Italy; Aegean Sea; 38°20’ N., 16°04’ W.; between Tokyo and Honolulu; Sea of Japan; Korean Strait; West coast of Kyushu, Japan. New records: Algeria; off Casablanca, Morocco; off Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.; Ocean City, N.J.; Cape Hatteras and Beaufort, N.C.; off Key West, Fla.; Havana, Cuba; 43°09’ N., 151°52’ W. Remarxs.—Mayer (1890) described this species as a variety of his compound species Caprella acutifrons (see p. 33). This species is composed of 20 varieties or forms, many of which should be considered full species by modern criteria (see Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953). C. andreae differs from the other forms of this compound species by the convexity of the propodus of pereopods 5-7. It appears to be ecologically isolated from the other members of the group by its habit of usually attaching to floating objects such as driftwood, buoys, and plants. It has also been found among the incrustations on the backs of the sea turtles, Thalassochelys and Chelonia, which were 27, U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 collected in the Mediterranean Sea, off Havana, Key West, and Beaufort, North Carolina. Ruffo (1938) cites this species as occurring off Brazil and Guiana; however, in personal correspondence he has advised me that he was referring to C. acutifrons s. lato and not specifically to C. andreae. Mayer’s specimens from his localities 3-7 were obtained from the Copenhagen Museum. I have selected a lectotype and an allolecto- type from locality 4, 38°10’ N., 64°20’ W. Caprella bermudia Kunkel, 1910 Caprella bermudia Kunkel, 1910, pp. 108-110, fig. 42. Remarxs.—Kunkel’s description of this species is inadequate to separate it from C. equilibra. It has not been included under C. equilibra because I have not been able to examine the type material. Inquiries at most of the larger museums in Europe and North America have not revealed their location. Caprella danilevskii Czerniavski, 1868 Figures 10, 11, 55 Caprella Danilevskii Czerniavski, 1868, pp. 92-93, pl. 6, figs. 21-34.—Mayer, 1882, p. 54; 1890, pp. 58-60, pl. 5, fig. 44, pl. 7, figs. 12-13, 54; 1903, p. 99.— Tichy, 1911, pp. 1131, 1133, 1184.—Zernov, 1913, p. 68.—Arimoto, 1930, pp. 50-51, fig. 5.—S. Carausu, 1956, pp. 131, 132. Caprella Danilewskii.—Sovinskii, 1880, pp. 88, 100-101.—d’A. Thompson, 1901, p. 41.—Chevreux and Fage, 1925, pp. 454-455, fig. 432.—Ruffo, 1941, p. 125; 1946, p. 53. Caprella inermis [not Grube] Haswell, 1880, p. 348, pl. 23, fig. 3; 1882, p. 314; 1884 (1885), p. 1000.—Mayer, 1882, p. 71, figs. 26-29; 1890, p. 75.—Oliveira, 1940, p. 189.—Guiler, 1954, pp. 532-533, fig. 1. Caprella danilevskii.—Stebbing, 1888, pp. 1264-1267, pl. 145; 1910b, p. 653.— Kunkel, 1910, pp. 110-111.—Zernov, 1913, p. 233.—Barnard, 1916, pp. 280-281; 1937, pp. 134, 197.—Hale, 1929, pp. 232-233, fig. 228.—Hiro, 1937, pp. 312-313, pl. 22, fig. 6.—Utinomi, 1943a, p. 275; 1943b, p. 284, fig. 4; 1943c, p. 289; 1947, p. 73.—Edmondson and Mansfield, 1948, pp. 216-218, fig. 8.—Stschapova, Mokyovsky, and Pasternak, 1957, p. 87. Caprella Danilevkit.—Monterosso, 1915, pp. 15-16. Caprella danilewskii.—Carausu and Carausu, 1942, p. 82, fig. 8d.—Costa, 1960a, pp. 99, 100. DraGcnosis.—Propodus of pereopods 5-7 with numerous setae but lacking grasping spines; in males both pairs of gills elliptical, long axis usually parallel to body, in female gills on pereonite 3 usually as in males; abdomen of male with hooked papillae at tip of appendage, that of female with small palplike appendage bearing seta at medial base. Derscription.—Body smooth, cephalon of large males with very small anterior projection. Length of largest male 9 mm, female 7 mm, smallest ovigerous female 4.5 mm. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 23 Antenna 1 and 2 typical of genus. Mouthparts typical of genus; lacinia mobilis of right mandible with 1 tooth, apical margin smooth or minutely serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 1 with 2 proximal grasping spines, grasping margin of dactylus serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 2 in males elongate Ficure 10.—Caprella danilevskii, male; a, labium; b, lateral view; c, antenna 1; d, abdomen; e, gnathopod 2; f, gnathopod 1; g, pereopod 5; h, left mandible; i, right mandible; 4, maxilla 2; £, maxilla 1; /, maxilliped. 24 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 b Ficure 11.—Caprella danilevskit, female; a, abdomen; b, gnathopod 2; ¢, gnathopod 1; d, lateral view. with posion tooth at midlength, rectangular tooth distally; dactylus less than one-half length of propodus; in females propodus with prox- imal poison tooth and distal rectangular tooth; dactylus more than one-half length of propodus. Gills 3 and 4 in males and 3 in females elliptical, long axis usually parallel to body; gill 4 in females oval or elliptical. Propodus of pereopods 5-7 without distinct grasping spines, palmar margin usually with numerous stout setae; grasping margin of dactylus serrate. Abdomen of male typical of genus except for hooked papillae at tip of appendage, female with small palplike appendage. VariatTion.—The shape of the gills is variable. In males the long axis is usually parallel to the body; however, either or both may occa- sionally be at various angles to the body. In the females either or both of the gills may have the long axis parallel to the body or may be at any angle. In small males the poison tooth on the propodus of gnath- opod 2 may be more proximal than midlength; however, the dactylus remains quite short. The palm of the propodus of pereopods 5-7 varies in setation from numerous stout setae to very few. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC ZO Disrrisution.—Type-locality: Black Sea. Other records: Bay of Biscay; Mediterranean coast of France; Mediterranean and Adriatic coasts of Italy; Sicily; Ukranian and Roumanian Black Sea; Cherchell, Algeria; Rufisque, Senegal; South Africa; South Arabian coast; Bermuda; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Oahu, Hawaii; 5. Sakhaline; Pacific coast of Hokkaido and Honshu, Japan; Amakusa Tomioka and Okinojima, Kyushu, Japan; Sea of Japan; Korean Straits; Southeastern Australia; Coles Bay, Tasmania. New records: Virginia Key, Key Biscayne, and Matheson Ham- mock, Fla.; Loggerhead Key, Tortugas; St. Croix, Virgin Islands; ‘Trinidad. Remarxs.—This species is quite widespread and pantropical in its distribution. It has been collected on sea grass, the phaeophytes Cystoseira and Sargassum, and the bryozoan Bugula. C. danilevskw is easily distinguished from the other species of Caprella in the western North Atlantic by its unusual gill shape, its distinctive abdomen, and the short dactylus of the male gnathopod 2. Caprella equilibra Say, 1818 FicurREs 12, 13, 55 Caprella equilibra Say, 1818, pp. 391-392.—de Kay, 1844, p. 41.—White, 1847, p. 92.—Gibbes, 1848, p. xvi; 1849, p. 23.—Stebbing, 1888, pp. 1254-1256; 1910a, p. 466; 1910b. p. 653.—Kunkel, 1910, pp. 106-108, fig. 4.—Barnard, 1916, p. 281; 1930, p. 440; 1932, p. 300.—Schellenberg, 1928, p. 678.— Procter, 1933, p. 256.—Edmonson and Mansfield, 1948, pp. 214-216, fig. 7.—Ricketts and Calvin, 1952, p. 68.—Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953, pp. 44, 47; 1954, pp. 170, 171.—Day and Morgan, 1956, p. 303.—Steinberg and Dougherty, 1957, pp. 273-274, figs. 1-2.—Johnson, 1965, appendix 2, p. 2, appendix 3, p. 4; 1966, appendix 2, p. 2.—McCain, 1965, pp. 193-194, fig. 1b, f; 1966, p. 92.—Johnson and Juskevice, 1965, p. 39. Caprella Januarii Kréyer, 1842-43, pp. 499-504, pl. 6, figs. 14-20.—Dana, 1853, pp. 819-820; 1855, pl. 55, fig. 2.—Herklots, 1861, p. 43. Caprella Esmarkit Boeck, 1861, pp. 674-675; 1871la, p. 275 (195); 1873-76, pp. 693-694, pl. 32, fig. 5. Caprella laticornis Boeck, 1861, pp. 675-676; 1871la, p. 274 (194); 1873-76, pp. 689-691, pl. 32, fig. 10. Caprella aequilibra.—Bate, 1862, pp. 362-363, pl. 57, fig. 5; 1887, pl. 175.—Bate and Westwood, 1868, pp. 71-73.—Parfitt, 1873, p. 251.—Gamroth, 1878, pp. 101-126, pls. 8-10.—Haller, 1879a, p. 232; 1879b, p. 404.— Mayer, 1882, pp. 45-48, pl. 1, fig. 7, pl. 2, figs. 1-11, pl. 4, figs. 20-25, pl. 5, figs. 16-18; 1890, pp. 48-50, pl. 2, figs. 42-43, pl. 4, figs. 35-37, pl. 6, figs. 18a, 37; 1903, pp. 89-92, pl. 3, figs. 29-34, pl. 7, figs. 66-69; 1912, pp. 4, 5.—Marion, 1883, p. 49.—Miers, 1884, p. 320.—Carus, 1885, p. 388.—Haswell, 1884 (1885), pp. 999-1000.—de Guerne, 1886, p. xliii—Norman, 1886, p. 26; 1905a, p. 26; 1905b, p. 85.—Thomson and Chilton, 1885 (1886), p. 142.— Chevreux, 1887a, p. 335; 1898, p. 483; 1900, p. 120.—Barrois, 1888, pp. 58, 77.—G, Sars, 1895, pp. 663-664, pl. 238, fig. 3—d’A. Thompson, 1901, p. 41.—Graeffe, 1902, p. 19.—Hutton, 1904, p. 261.—Marine Biol. Assoc., 1904, p. 242; 1931, p. 198; 1957, p. 233—Norman and Scott, 1906, pp. ix, 26 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 99.—Scott, 1906, p. 175.—Sinel, 1906 (1907), p. 222.—Tichy, 1911, p. 11384.— Thomson, 1913, p. 245.—LaFollette, 1914, pp. 224-225, pl. 5.—Briggs, 1914 (1915), pp. 79-80.—Kunkel, 1918, pp. 180-181.—Thomson and Ander- ton, 1921, p. 113.—Galdiano, 1924, p. 392.—Chevreux and Fage, 1925, pp. 455-456, fig. 433.—Schellenberg, 1926, p. 470.—Johnson and Snook, 1927, pp. 280-281, fig. 235.—Stephensen, 1927a, p. 150; 1927c, p. 355; 1928, p. 386, fig. 92 (13); 1929a, pp. 180-181, figs. 43-336; 1929b, p. 34; 1942, pp. 439, 502, 503.—Fischetti, 1932, pp. 1-28, figs. 1-5.—Oldevig, 1933, p. 269, fig. 3—MacGinitie, 1935, p. 701.—Pirlot, 1939, p. 78.—Fioren- cis, 1940, pp. 13-14, figs. 3-4, pl. 1, figs. 3, 4, 7.—Milne, 1940, p. 72.— Oliveira, 1940, p. 1389.—Bertrand, 1941, pp. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16—McDougall, 1943, pp. 363, 370.—Hewatt, 1946, pp. 196, 199, 201, 204.—Ruffo, 1946, p. 53.—Utinomi, 1947, p. 72.—Ellis, 1950, p. 13.—Reid, 1951, pp. 283, 289.—Guiler, 1952, p. 31; 1954, p. 582.—Tuzet and Sanchez, 1952, pp. 26-36, fig. 1-1&2, fig. 2, fig. 3—Duke Univ. Mar. Lab., 1953, p. 22.—Belleudy, 1958, pp. 355-356.—Costa, 1960a, pp. 99, 100.—Luther and Fiedler, 1961, p. 158, pl. 24.—Peyrot and Trilles, 1964, pp. 1-28, figs. 1-19. Caprella ultima Bate, 1862, pp. 364-365, pl. 57, fig. 9. Caprella monacantha Heller, 1866, pp. 54-55, pl. 4, figs. 17-19.—Stalio, 1877, pp. 1125-1126.—Stossich, 1881, p. 230. Caprella obtusa Heller, 1886, p. 54, pl. 4, fig. 16.—Stalio, 1877, p. 13890.—Stossich, 1881, p. 230. Caprella megacephala A. Edwards, 1868, pp. 89-91, pl. 20, fig. 12. Caprella aeguilibra.—Bate, 1878, p. 510. Caprella caudata Thomson 1878 (1879), p. 246, pl. 10, fig. D-5.—Mayer, 1882, pp. 71-72; 1890, p. 76. Caprella obesa [not van Beneden] Haswell, 1880, pp. 348-349, pl. 24, fig. 1; 1882, p. 314. Caprella AEquilibra.—Chevreux, 1888, p. 351. Caprella linearis [not Linnaeus].—Barrois, 1888, pp. 56-57, 77.—Chevreux, 1899, p. 484 [in part].—Chevreux and Fage, 1925, pp. 456-457, fig. 434 [in part].— Pearse, 1936, p. 193.—Wells, 1961, p. 247. Caprella mendax Mayer, 1903, p. 114, pl. 5, figs. 9-11, pl. 8, fig. 22. Diacnosis.—Basis of gnathopod 2 less than one-half length of pereonite 2, propodus without small proximal accessory tooth; pereo- nite 2 usually with spine between insertions of gnathopods 2; pereo- nites 1-2 elongated in large males. DescriptTion.—Body smooth except for spine between insertions of gnathopod 2, caphalon flattened anteriorly. Length of largest male 22 mm, largest female 12 mm, smallest ovigerous female 6.4 mm. Large males with articles 2-3 of peduncle of antenna 1 slightly shorter than antenna 2, article 3 subequal in length to article 2, article 1 less than one-half length of article 2, articles of peduncle expanded. In females and small males peduncle of antenna 1 sometimes shorter than antenna 2. Mouthparts typical of genus, lacinia mobilis of right mandible 5-toothed. Propodus of gnathopod 1 with 2 proximal grasping spines, grasping margin of dactylus and propodus serrate. Basis of gnathopod 2 short CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 27 and stout, anterodistal margin produced into triangular projection; ischium and merus with posterodistal margin pointed in larger males; palm of propodus with munerous setae, single proximal grasping spine, distally with large rectangular tooth and slightly proximal tooth. Gills ovate to elliptical, more ovate in larger males. \ ann 7 : 'g KO - Ficure 12.—Caprella equilibra, male; a, lateral view; b, labium; ¢c, maxilla 2; d, maxilla 1; e, abdomen; f, pereopod 5; g, maxilliped; h, gnathopod 1. 279-475—68——_3 28 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 13.—Caprella equilibra, female; a, lateral view; ), gnathopod 1; ¢, maxilla 2; d, gnathopod 2; e, maxilla 1; f, abdomen; g, inner and outer lobes of maxilliped; h, right mandible; 7, left mandible; 7, pereopod 6. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 29 Propodus of pereopods 5-7 robust with 2 proximal grasping spines, palm expanded slightly near grasping spines and with numerous setae. Abdomen of male and female typical of genus. VariaTion.—In the western North Atlantic this species is constant in most of its characters; however, a variant occurs along the coast of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina in which the spine between the insertions of gnathopods 2 is reduced or absent. In this variant the propodus of the pereopods is less robust and the body not quite so stout as in the typical C. equilibra. Off Virginia this variant was taken on Leptoyorgia. This association may have some relation to the reduction of the spine and stoutness of the pereopods since C. penantis taken from Leptogorgia showed a loss of grasping spines on the propodus of the pereopods (p. 35). Distrisution.—Type locality: South Carolina. “. . . [found them common in the bay of Charleston, particularly at Sullivan’s island, on the two species of Gorgonia so common in the salt water creeks of our southern coast” (Say, 1818). Other records: Sweden and Norway to the Mediterranean Sea in- cluding the British Islands; Black Sea [?]; Azores; tropical West Africa; St. Helena Island; South Africa; Madagascar; Mid-North Atlantic and Sargasso Sea; Bermuda; east coast of United States from Connecticut to Georgia (Procter, 1933, cites this species from Mount Desert Region, Maine); Port Aransas, Texas; Puerto Cabello, Vene- zuela; Cabo Frio and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Mid-South Atlantic off Brazil; Mar del Plata, Argentina; Valparaiso, Chile; Taboga Island, Panama; between Panama and the Galapagos Islands; California; Hawaii; Nagasaki, Mukaijima, and Saganoseki, Japan; Philippine Islands; Cook Strait; New South Wales, Victoria, Fremantle, Aus- tralia; New Zealand; Tasmania; Hong Kong; Singapore, Malaysia. New records: Fernandina, entrance to St. Johns River, St. Augus- tine, Daytona, Cape Kennedy, off Ft. Lauderdale, Biscayne Bay, and Panama City, Fla.; Grand Isle, La.; Galveston and Port Isabel Tex.; Trinidad; Sacco Sao Francisco and Nictherey, Brazil; Estera de la Luna, Sonora, Mexico; Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Remarks.—Large males of this species are easily distinguished from the other species of Caprella by the large peduncular articles of antenna 1 and the long pereonites 1 and 2. In both males and females the cephalon is flattened anteriorly and in the typical form a spine is present between the insertions of gnathopods 2. The non- spined variant resembles other species of Caprella but can be identified by the short stout basis of gnathopod 2 and the other characters which are present in the typical form. C. equilibra has been collected from various habitats including sea grass, red and green algae, sponges, hydroids, stylasterines, 30 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 alcyonarians, bryozoans, and colonial ascidians. It was also taken from the egg mass of a blue crab and from the gut of a sea bass Centropristis. This species ranges in depth from the surface to ?3000 m (McCain, 1966). In an aquarium it was preyed upon by the grass shrimp Palae- monetes, the blenny Blennius, and the small (2 mm) snail Astyris was observed severing the cephalon from a large male (12 mm). When C. equilibra was offered small pieces of bivalves or bryozoans it would accept them readily. It was also observed catching small gcammaridean amphipods such as Ampithoe and Jassa and also several small polychaetes. Initially the prey was seized in gnathopod 1 and then brought to the mouthparts. Gnathopod 2 was seldom used in the capture of prey and even when it was used, the prey was quickly passed to gnathopod 1. Caprella linearis (Linnaeus, 1767) Figures 14, 22, 51 Cancer linearis Linnaeus, 1767, p. 1056; 1769, pp. 445-446; 1788, p. 2992; 1793, p. 501.—J. Fabricius, 1793, pp. 517-518. Onisct Scolopendroidis Pallas, 1772, p. 80, pl. 4, fig. 15a—c. Squilla lobata Miller, 1776, p. 197. Squilla quadrilobata Abildgaard, 1788, pp. 21-22, pl. 56, figs 4-6. Gammarus quadrilobatus.—Abildgaard, 1789, p. 58, pl. 114, figs. 11-12. Cancer (Gammarellus) linearis.—Herbst, 1793 ,pp. 142-144, pls. 9a, 10b. Cancer Linnearis.—Linnaeus, 1800, p. 761. Caprella linearis.—Bosc, 1801-02, p. 156; 1830, p. 126, pl. 15, fig. 5.—Latreille, 1802-03, pp. 324-326, pl. 57, figs. 2-5; 1803, p. 333; 1816, p. 434.—Desmarest, 1823, p. 364; 1825, p. 278.—Johnston, 1835, pp. 671-672, fig. 71.—Drapiez, 1837, p. 353.—H. Edwards, 1840, pp. 106-107.—Goodsir, 1842, p. 190, pl. 3, figs. 8-9.—White, 1847, pp. 91-92; 1850, pp. 59-60; 1857, pp. 214-215.— Cocks, 1849, p. 83.—Williams, 1854, pp. 301-312, pl. 17, fig. 6.—Gosse, 1855, p. 131, fig. 223.—Bate, 1856, p. 60; 1857, p. 151; 1862, p. 353, pl. 55, fig. 7; 1878, p. 509; 1887, p. 175.—Leydig, 1860, p. 283.—van Beneden, 1861, p. 145.—McAndrew, 1861, p. 28.—[?] Dohrn, 1866, pp. 245-250, pl. 13b.— Bate and Westwood, 1868, pp. 52-56.—Miiller, 1869, pp. 40-41.—Metzger, 1869-70 (1871), p. 32; 1875, p. 278.—Boeck, 1871la, pp. 273 (193)-274 (194).—Iarzynsky, 1870, p. 316.—Parfitt, 1873, p. 250.—M’Intosh, 1874, p. 272.—Maitland, 1874, p. 245.—Meinert, 1877-78, pp. 168-171; 1880, p. 495; 1890, p. 184.—Hoex, 1879, pp. 97-161, pl. 5, figs. 1-8, 11-18, pl. 6, fig. 2, pl. 7, figs. 1-3, 11-14; 1883-84, pp. 532, 533; 1889, p. 231.—Delage, 1881, p. 153.—Mayer, 1882, pp. 58-62, figs. 17-19, pl. 4, fig. 32; 1890, pp. 63-65; 1903, pp. 109-113, pl. 4, figs. 27-35, pl. 8, figs. 19-21.—Pelsenner, 1883, p. CX X XI; 1886, p. 218.—Schneider, 1883, p. 30; 1891, pp. 111, 122; 1924 (1926), pp. 59-60.—Blanec, 1884, pp. 88-91, pl. 5, figs. 122-129.— Koehler, 1884 (1885), pp. 98-99, 117; 1885, pp. 27, 61.—Wagner, 1885, p. 169.—Fowler, 1886, p. 218.—de Guerne, 1886, p. XLIII.—Norman, 1886, p. 26; 1902, p. 483; 1905a, p. 26; 1905b, p. 85; 1907, p. 370; 1908 (1909), p. 463.—G. Sars, 1886, pp. 69, 89; 1895, pp. 657-658, pl. 236.—[?] Thomson and Chilton, 1886, p. 142.—Bonnier, 1887, pp. 354—356.—Chevreux, 1887, p. 335; 1898, p. 484.—Robertson, 1886-87 (1888), pp. 71-72.—Scott, 1887 CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 31 (1888), p. 250; 1897, p. 141; 1906, pp. 174-175.—Chevreux and Bouvier, 1893, p. 143.—Lameere, 1895, p. 570.—[{?] Ohlin, 1895a, pp. xvii, xix, 62-63; 1895b, p. 486.—Walker, 1895, p. 319; 1898, p. 170.—Walker and Hornell, 1896, p. 55.—Gadeau de Kerville, 1900 (1901), p. 184.—Sokolowsky, 1900, p. 162, pl. 3, fig. 16.—Ortmann, 1901, p. 155.—d’A. Thompson, 1901, p. 41.—Whiteaves, 1901, p. 219.—Lénnberg, 1902 (1903), p. 50.—[{?] Hutton, 1904, p. 261.—Marine Biol. Assoc., 1904, p. 242; 1951, p. 198; 1957, p. 234.— Holmes, 1904 (1905), pp. 526-527.—M. Rathbun, 1905, pp. 7, 78.—Norman and Scott, 1906, pp. x, 98.—Reibisch, 1906, pp. 217-218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 229, 230, 233.—Sinel, 1906 (1907), p. 222.—Briiggen, 1907, p. 238.—Norman and Brady, 1910, pp. 75-76.—Nordgaard, 1911 (1912), p. 24.—Massy, 1911 (1912), pp. 7, 22, 34, 42, 43, 45, 51, 68, 70, 73, 82, 169.—Sumner, Osburn, and Cole, 1911 (1913), p. 657.—Tattersall, 1913, pp. 20, 22.—Derjugin, 1915, pp. 453, 456; 1928, p. 282.—Bjoérck, 1915, p. 35; 1916, p. 9—Chumley, 1918, pp. 52, 85, 165.— Kunkel, 1918, pp. 177-178, fig. 54.—Funke, 1922, p. 197.— Chevreux and Fage, 1925, pp. 456-457, fig. 434 [in part].—Derjavin, 1927, p. 14.—Stephensen, 1927a, p. 149; 1927b, p. 13; 1928, pp. 382-384, fig. 92 (1-4); 1929a, p. 179, fig. 333; 1929b, pp. 19, 34; 1935, p. 118; 1940, p. 73; 1942, pp. 436-437, 502, 503; 1944b, p. 159.—Johansen, 1930, p. 94.—Shoe- maker, 1930, p. 353 (135).—[?] Arimoto, 1931, pp. 13-14, fig. 9.—Gurjanova, 1931, p. 201; 1964, p. 313.—Oldevig, 1933, pp. 264-266.—Procter, 1933, p. 256.—Dons, 1935, p. 110.—Schellenberg, 1942, pp. 237-238, fig. 197.— Dahl, 1946, p. 22.—[?] Utinomi, 1947, p. 75.—Stock and Bolklander. 1952, pp. 3-4.—Bousfield, 1956b, p. 145; 1958, p. 315.—Brunel, 1961, p. 7.— Toulmond and Truchot, 1964, p. 35. Caprella Linearis—Leach, 1814, p. 404.—Risso, 1816, p. 1380.—Couch, 1864, p. 98. [?]Caprella Punctata Risso, 1816, pp. 130-131; 1826, p. 102.—Carus, 1885, p. 389. Caprella laevis Goodsir, 1842, pp. 189-190, pl. 3, figs. 4-5.—White, 1847, p. 92; 1850, p. 60; 1857, p. 215.—Gosse, 1855, p. 131.—Bate, 1856, p. 60. [?]Caprella phasma {not Montagu].—Rathke, 1843, pp. 94-96. [?]Caprella acuminifera [not Leach].—Rathke, 1843, p. 96. [?]Caprella scolopendroides [not Lamarck].—Rathke, 1843, p. 97. Caprella lobata.—Bate, 1856, p. 60; 1857, p. 151; 1862, p. 354, pl. 55, fig. 8; 1878, p. 509; 1887, p. 175.—Bate and Westwood, 1868, pp. 57-59.—Parfitt, 1873, p. 250. Caprella linearis f. gullmarensis Mayer, 1903, p. 112, pl. 8, fig. 20. Caprella linearis f. distalis Mayer, 1903, p. 113, pl. 4, figs. 27-28. Dracnosis.—Body smooth or with only few spines, peduncle of antenna 1 usually with numerous setules, ratio of total length to length of basis of gnathopod 2 usually less than 13.0, inner surface of gnathopod 2 with small tooth adjacent to poison tooth. DistrinutTion.—Type-locality: “Habitat im Oceano [uropaeo”’ (Linnaeus, 1767). Other records: Siberian Polar Sea to 140° E.; Murman coast; Spitsbergen; Norway to France; British Islands; Faeroe Islands; Iceland; coast of North America from Labrador to Connecticut; [?]Kamchatka, Japan, and New Zealand. New records: The material available to me does not extend the range of this species. 32 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 14.—Caprella linearis; a, male gnathopod 2; b, male lateral view; ¢, female lateral view; d, female gnathopod 2; ¢, female pereopod 6; f, female gnathopod 1. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC ao Remarks.—The appendages of C. linearis are quite similar to those of C. septentrionalis and are discussed under the latter species. C. linearis does not appear to be specific in its habitat, having been collected from brown, green, and red algae, sea grass, sponges, hydroids, alcyonarians, and tunicates. Ohlin (1895a) reported it from an Asterias collected off Newfoundland. This report may refer to C. wnica since the body form and most of the appendages of these species are quite similar and (. wnica has been collected off Newfoundland. Mayer (1903) also reported C. linearis from an asteroid, Solaster, which was collected off Scotland. C. linearis has been taken from the surface to a depth of several hundred meters. Caprella longimanus Stimpson, 1853 Caprella longimanus Stimpson, 1854 (1853), p. 44.—-Whiteaves, 1901, p. 220.— Bate, 1862, pp. 360-361. Caprella longimana.— Mayer, 1882, p. 66; 1890, p. 73. Remarks.—A caprellid from Grand Manan was described by Stimpson as Body with a few spines along the back of each segment. Superior antennae rather stout and twice as long as the inferior ones, which are very slender. Hands very long and rather broad, with two or three teeth along the inner edge; the arms to which they belong are placed on the thickened posterior part of the second seg- ment. Color light-yellowish brown. Eyes red. Length about three-fourths of an inch. From this description it is impossible to tell to which species Stim pson is referring. It might be C. septentrionalis because of the mention of a few dorsal spines, but several other species bear spines. Caprella penantis Leach, 1814 Figures 15, 16, 51 [?]Cancer Atomos Linnaeus, 1767, p. 1056; 1769, pp. 446-447; 1788, pp. 2992- 2993; 1793, p. 501; 1800, p. 761.—Pennant, 1777, p. 21, pl. 12, fig. 32. Caprella Penantis Leach, 1814, p. 404. Caprella acutifrons Latreille, 1816, p. 433.—[?] Desmarest, 1823, p. 363; [?] 1825, p. 277.—[?] Drapiez, 1837, p. 353.—[?] H. Edwards, 1840, p. 108.—[?] White, 1847, p. 92; [?] 1850, p. 60; [?] 1857, p. 216.—[?] Cocks, 1849, p. 83.—[?] Gosse, 1855, p. 131.—[?] Bate, 1856, p. 60; [?] 1862, p. 356, pl. 56, fig. 6; [?] 1878, p. 509; [?] 1887, p. 175.—[?] Bate and Westwood, 1868, pp. 60-62.— (?] Parfitt, 1873, p. 250.—[?] Maitland, 1874, p. 245.—[?] Stalio, 1877, p. 1125.—[?] Haller, 1879a, p. 232; [?] 1879b, p. 404.—Mayer, 1882, pp. 48- 50, pl. 1, fig. 9, pl. 2, figs. 12-22, pl. 4, figs. 26-28, pl. 5, figs 15, 22, 23 [in part]; 1890, pp. 50-57, pl. 2, figs. 34-41, pl. 4, figs. 52-71, pl. 7, figs. 16-17 {in part]; 1903, pp. 79-89, pl. 3, figs. 4-28, pl. 7, figs. 62-65 [in part].—[?] Delage, 1881, pp. 131-132, 155, pl. 10, figs. 11-12.—-Stossich, 1881, p. 230.— [?] Marion, 1883, p. 49.—[?] Carus, 1885, p. 388.—[?] Norman, 1886, p. 26; [?] 1905a, p. 26; [?] 1905b, p. 85; [?] 1907, p. 370; [?] 1908 (1909), p. 463.— [?] Pelseneer, 1886, p. 218.—[?] Bonnier, 1887, p. 353.—[?] Chevreux, 1887a, 34 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 pp. 318, 335; [?] 1888, p. 33; [?] 1898, p. 483; 1900, pp. 119-120.—[?] Barrois, 1888, pp. 57-58, 77.—[?] Vosseler, 1889, p. 159.—[?] Walker and Hornell, 1896, p. 54.—[?] Gadeau de Kerville, 1898, p. 348; [?] 1900 (901), p. 184.— [?] Walker, 1898, p. 170.—[?] Beaumont, 1900, p. 795.—[?] d’A. Thompson, 1901, p. 41.—M. Rathbun, 1905, pp. 7, 77-78.—[?] Norman and Scott, 1906, pp. vii, 99.—[?] Sinel, 1906 (1907), p. 222.—Chilton, 1910 (1911), pp. 546, 567.—[?] Monterosso, 1915, p. 15, fig. 3.—[?] Galdiano, 1924, p. 392.—Richards, 1929, p. 84; 1938, p. 213, pl. 24, fig. 7—Cowles, 1930, p. 351.—[?] Mar. Biol. Assoc., 1931, p. 198; [?] 1957, p. 233.—Barnard, 1932, p. 300; 1965, p. 209.—Procter, 1933, p. 256.—[?] MacGinitie, 1935, p. 701.— Schellenberg, 1938, pp. 95, 98.—[?] Ricketts and Calvin, 1939, pp. 70-71; [?] 1952, p. 68.—[?] Bertrand, 1941, pp. 12, 13, 14.—Pearse, Humm, and Whar- ton, 1942, p. 184.—Dexter, 1944, p. 356.—[?] MacKay, 1945, p. 205.—[?] Hewatt, 1946, pp. 194, 196, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204.—[?] Ruffo, 1947, p. 129.— Edmondson ad Mansfield, 1948, pp. 212-214, fig. 6—Ferguson and Jones, 1949, p. 442.—[?] Stephensen, 1949, p. 54.—Hedgpeth, 1950, pp. 77-78.— Ellis, 1950, p. 13.—[?] Tuzet and Sanchez, 1952, pp. 26-36, figs. 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, fig. 4.—Duke Univ. Mar. Lab., 1953, p. 22.—[?] Macnae, 1953, p. 1032.— Bousfield, 1956b, p. 145; 1958, pp. 315, 321—Menzel, 1956, p. 41.—Pearse and Williams, 1951, p. 143.—[?] Stschapova, Mokyovsky, and Pasternak, 1957, p. 87.—[?] Costa, 1960a, pp. 99, 100.— Wells, 1961, pp. 247, 249.—[?] Toulmond and Truchot, 1964, p. 35. Caprella geometrica Say, 1818, pp. 390-391.—de Kay, 914, p. 41.—White, 1847, p. 92.—Gibbes, 1848, p. xvi; 1849, p. 23.—Bate, 1862, p. 357, pl. 56, fig. 8.— Verrill and Smith, 1873, pp. 316-317, 480, 567, pl. 5, fig. 20.—Uhler, 1879, pp. 26-27.—R. Rathbun, 1880 (1881), p. 121.—Norman, 1886a, p. 26; 1905, p. 26.—Holmes, 1904 (1905), p. 526.—Paulmier, 1905, p. 168, fig. 38.—Kunkel, 1918, pp. 178-180, fig. 55—Sumner, Osborn, and Cole, 1911 (1913), pp. 132, 134, 135, 657, chart 102.—Pearse, 1913, p. 378. LaFollette, 1914, pp. 222-223, pl. 1-3.—Allee, 1922, p. 58; 1923, p. 213.—Wood and Wood, 1932, p. 18—McCain, 1965, pp. 194-196, figs. 1c,g, 2a-f. Caprella Pennantii—I[?] Johnston, 1835, p. 671—[?] Bate, 1856, p. 60; [?] 1857, p. 151.—[?] McAndrew, 1861, p. 28.—[?] Couch, 1864, p. 97. [?] Caprella spinifrons Nicolet, 1849, p. 253.—Mayer, 1882, p. 70; 1890, p. 74.— Reed, 1897, p. 11 (4). [?] Caprella obesa van Beneden, 1861, pp. 99, 146. Caprella Acutifrons.—[?] Herklots, 1861, p. 43. [?] Caprella novae-zealandiae Kirk, 1878, pp. 465-466; 1878 (1879), p. 393.—Thom- son, 1879, p. 330. [?] Caprella Novae-Zealandiae.—Mayer, 1882, pp. 71-72; 1890, p. 76. [?] Caprella penantiit.—Bate, 1887, p. 175. Caprella acutifrons f. tabida Mayer, 1890, pp. 54-55, pl. 2, fig. 36, pl. 4, figs. 52, 61. Caprella acutifrons f. neglecta Mayer, 1890, p. 55, pl. 2, fig. 37, pl. 4, figs. 57-58, 67; 1903, p. 80.—Utinomi, 1943a, pp. 273-274, figs. 2a, 3a; 19438b, pp. 282-283, fig. 2; 1943c, p. 284, fig. 1; 1947, p. 72. [?] Caprella acutifrons f. gibbosa Mayer, 1890, p. 55, pl. 2, fig. 39, pl. 4, figs. 55, 69. Caprella acutifrons f. carolinensis Mayer, 1890, p. 56, pl. 2, fig. 40, pl. 4, figs. 59, 65. [?] Caprella acutifrons f. lusitanica Mayer, 1890, p. 56, pl. 4, figs. 53, 66. Caprella acutifrons f. virginia Mayer, 1890, p. 56, pl. 2, fig. 41, pl. 4, fig. 60. Caprella acutifrons f. natalensis Mayer, 1903, p. 81, pl. 3, figs. 22, 23—Arimoto, 1930, pp. 48-49, fig. 3—Hiro, 1937, p. 312, pl. 22, fig. 5—Stephensen, 1949, pp. 53-54, 56. Caprella acutifrons f. porcellio Mayer, 1903, pp. 81-82. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC oo Caprella acutifrons f. testudo Mayer, 1903, p. 82.—Chevreux and Fage, 1925, p. 452, fig. 430t. Caprella acutifrons f. angusta Mayer, 1903, p. 82, pl. 3, fig. 4. Caprella acutifrons f. tibada Mayer, 1903, p. 80. Caprella penantis—Stebbing, 1910b, p. 653.—[?] Hale, 1929, pp. 233-234.—[?] Schellenberg, 1931, pp. 266, 272. Caprella penantis f. natalensis.—Stebbing, 1910a, pp. 465-466.—Barnard, 1916, pp. 281-282. Caprella penantis f. porcellio. —Stebbing, 1910a, p. 466. Caprella angusta-—Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953, pp. 44, 47; 1954, p. 171.— Johnson and Juskevice, 1965, p. 38. Caprella carolinensis.—Steinberg and Dougherty, 1957, pp. 270-273, figs. 3-7. Diacnosis.—Cephalon with anteriorly directed triangular pro- jection; peduncle of antenna 1 not inflated; basis of gnathopod 2 shorter than pereonite 2; pereopods concave, grasping spines proximal. Description.—Body smooth except cephalon with anteriorly di- rected triangular projection. Length of largest male 14 mm, largest female 12 mm, smallest ovigerous female 4 mm. Peduncle of antenna 1 not inflated, flagellum with up to 15 articles. Antenna 2 usually longer than peduncle of antenna 1. Mouthparts typical of genus, lacinia mobilis of right mandible toothed but indistinctly 5-toothed. Propodus of gnathopod 1 with 2 proximal grasping spines, grasping margin of dactylus and propodus serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 2 with proximal poison tooth, palm concave in males and slightly convex in females with distal elevated rectangular projection; grasp- ing margin of dactylus serrate. Gills usually ovate, occasionally elliptical. Propodus of pereopods 5-7 usually with pair of proximal grasping spines, pereopods increasing in length from 5 to 7. Abdomen of male and female typical of genus. Variation.—In the area around Alligator Harbor, Fla., C. penantis taken on Leptogorgia showed a reduction or loss of grasping spines on the propodus of pereopods 5-7. Approximately 90 percent of the specimens taken during the summer of 1966 lacked grasping spines and remaining 10 percent had either 1 or 2 grasping spines. Other specimens of this species taken during that summer on algae and hydroids had the usual pair of grasping spines. It is interesting to note that CO. equilibra taken on Leptogorgia off Virginia showed a reduction or loss of the ventral spine between the insertions of enathopods 2. As J illustrated in 1965 (p. 195, fig. 2a-f) the shape of the propodus of gnathopod 2 changes with an increase in the size of the individual. In smaller individuals of approximately 4 or 5 mm, gnathopod 2 resembles gnathopod 1 and bears a pair of grasping spines. As the 36 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 15.—Caprella penantis, male; a, lateral view; b, gnathopod 2; ¢, gnathopod 1; d, maxilla 1; ¢, right mandible; f, left mandible; g, abdomen; A, inner lobe of maxilliped; 1, outer lobe of maxilliped. individual increases in size there is a progressive loss of 1, then of both spines, and a notch develops in the palm. Stoutness of the body and the degree of pleural development appear to be a function of growth, larger individuals having a robust body and well-developed pleura. ' CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC of DistrisuTion.—Type-locality: Devonshire Coast, England. Other records: Atlantic coast of France, Spain, and Portugal; British Islands; Azores; Atlantic coast of North America from Nova Scotia and Gulf of St. Lawrence to Georgia; Alligator Harbor, St. Georges Sound, and Apalachee Bay, Fla.; Galveston, Freeport, Port Aransas, and Port Isabel, Tex.; Safety Islands; Tristan da Cunha and Gough Island; South Africa; California; Hawaii; Kyushu and Honshu, Japan; Formosa Strait; Hong Kong; New Zealand; New South Wales, Australia. New records: Savannah Beach and Sapelo Island, Ga.; Fernandina Beach, Mayport, St. Augustine, Marineland, Ft. Pierce, Key West, Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay, Dunedin, Panama City, and Destin, Fla.; Ocean Springs, Miss.; Cayenne, French Guiana. Remarks.—In Mayer’s last two monographs (1890, 1903), he names 20 varieties or forms of the Caprella acutifrons group. Of Ficure 16.—Caprella penantis, female; a, lateral view; b, gnathopod 2; c, pereopod 7; d, gnathopod 1; ¢, abdomen. 38 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 these, C. acutifrons f. angusta (1903), borealis (1903), incisa (1903), and verrucosa (1903) (=C.verrucosa Boeck, 1871b) have since been given specific rank. In the present paper one other variety, C. acuti- frons f. andreae, is accorded specific rank, leaving 14 varieties in question. The varieties C. acutifrons f. typica (1890), minor (1890), tabida (1890), and tibada (1903) differ from the remaining varieties pri- marily by the distal position of the poison tooth on the palm of the propodus of gnathopod 2. Mayer recognized C. acutifrons f. typica and minor from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the latter variety being based on a smaller individual than the former. Krgyer (1842- 43) described CO. dilatata from Rio de Janeiro. All of the above- mentioned varieties should be assigned to C. dilatata. Juveniles of this species bear a small proximal tooth on the palm of gnathopod 2, which is very short and spinelike and is not present on individuals larger than approximately 8 mm. In 1903 Mayer changed the 1890 variety tabida to tibada and recognized C. tabida Lucas, 1849, as a different variety. C. acutifrons f. tabida (1903) (=C. tabida Lucas, 1849), C. acutifrons f. simulatriz (1903), C. pilimana Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953, and C. obtusi- frons Utinomi, 1948c, differ from the remaining varieties by the lack of a poison tooth on the palm of gnathopod 2. Specimens of the first two varieties and of C. obtusifrons have not been examined so I cannot make any statement on their validity. Caprella acutifrons f. cristibrachium (1903) lacks a triangular pro- jection on the cephalon and the shape of gnathopod 2 is quite different from that of the other members of the C. acutifrons group. It is doubtful that it is a variety of this group and probably should be given specific rank. The remaining varieties, C. acutifrons f. carolinensis (1890), virginia (1890), testudo (1903), gibbosa (1890), lusitanica (1890), natalensis (1903), porcellio (1903), and neglecta (1890), are quite similar in the shape of gnathopod 2 and general body form. In the first five varieties the palm of the propodus of gnathopod 2 is quite setose and in the last three varieties and C. angusta the palm is scarcely setose. I have been unable to find other distinguishing characters for these varieties, so I have tentatively assigned them to the species C. penantis. Dougherty and Steinberg (1953) gave C. acutifrons f. angusta, incisa, and verrucosa specific rank. These varieties occur together on the California coast and have been collected simulatneously from the same hydroid. Since they are sympatric and no morphological intergradations were observed, all of these varieties cannot be ascribed to the same species. I agree with Dougherty and Steinberg’s decision to give them specific rank; however, they do not state how C. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 39 angusta differs from the typical C. penantis. Specimens of C. angusta have been compared with specimens which Mayer identified as C. acutifrons f. natalensis and neglecta and with specimens which I earlier (1965) identified as C. geometrica. With the exception of the setose versus nonsetose palm of guathopod 2, I can find no variation which is not ascribable to size differences. I have therefore synony- mized C. angusta with the typical C. penantis. The specimens from Cayenne, French Guiana, belong to that portion of C. penantis which bears almost no setae on the palm of enathopod 2. It might well be that C. penantis could be divided into two subspecies on the basis of the setation of gnathopod 2; however, material from Chile, Australia, and New Zealand would have to be examined since Nicolet’s name C. spinifrons or possibly Kirk’s name C. novae-zealandiae would probably have priority over one of Mayer’s varietal names. Material is not available to me from these areas so I have refrained from naming subspecies. Kirk’s (1878) description of C. novae-zealandiae agrees with that of C. penantis, and he states that his species is close to C. geometrica. Thomson and Chilton (1885, 1886) synonymized C. novae-zealandiae with C. equilibra; however, Kirk states “Cephalon furnished with a spinous tooth directed forwards.” It seems unlikely that Kirk could have been referring to C. equilibra, so I have synonymized his species with C. penantis. In my synonymy, when a reference to the variety of C. acutifrons or C. penantis is not indicated, this lack of designation is indicated by a question mark in brackets before the author or date. Such records are not included in the distribution of this species, so it is possible that C. penantis might also be found as far north as Spits- bergen, the Mediterranean Sea, the Falkland Islands, Chile, Cook Strait, and the Bering Sea. This species is probably the most common caprellid along the east coast of the United States. It occurs in such abundance from Long Island to Chesapeake Bay that I have had several reports that it is a pest to swimmers. One report from Sinepuxent Bay, Md. stated that C. penantis fastens itself to the exposed parts of swimmers’ bodies and either bites or sucks, causing an lritation that forms a blister which lasts for a week or more. Such an irritation might be caused by the associated hydroids and not by the caprellid itself, but this possibility has not been verified. C. penantis is quite nonspecific in its habitat preference and has been taken on various red and brown algae, sea grass, sponges, hy- droids, aleyonarians, zoantharians, and bryozoans. Chilton (1911) reports that this species was collected from a coconut which was washed ashore; I have found it clinging to the spines of the echinoid 40 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Arbacia and on hydroids which were attached to the carapace of the spider crab Libinia. Caprella sanguinea Gould, 1841 Caprella sanguinea Gould, 1841, pp. 335-336.—de Kay, 1844, p. 41.—Stimpson, 1854 (1853), p. 44.—Bate, 1862, p. 360.—Mayer, 1882, p. 67; 1890, p. 73.— Whiteaves, 1901, p. 219. Remarxs.—This species from Massachusetts was described by Gould as: . an inch in length, entirely crimson except its black eyes. The head is blunt, the lower antennae ciliated and extending to the second segment, and the upper ones to the third segment; first two segments nearly as long as the three next, and about one third of the whole length; on the middle of the first is a spine; two last segments short and heart-shaped. Hands having a long curved finger; an imperfect thumb on the second pair of legs; a tubercule at the base of the ovate carpus, and a small spine at the middle. This might be called C. sanguinea, from its color, which it retains in spirits. Like Stimpson’s C. longimanus, this species is unidentifiable and it might also belong to C. septentrionalis. Caprella scaura Templeton, 1836 FicureEs 17, 18, 55 Caprella scaura Templeton, 1836, pp. 191-192, pl. 20 fig. 6—H. Edwards, 1840, p. 107.—Bate, 1862, p. 355, pl. 56, fig. 4.—Mayer, 1882, p. 65; 1890, pp. 70-73, pl. 4, figs. 40-51, pl. 6, fig. 41, pl. 7, figs. 2, 35-36 [in part]; 1903, pp. 117-120, pl. 5, figs. 13-18, pl. 10, fig. 11 [in part].—Walker, 1916, p. 346.—Barnard, 1925, pp. 371-372.—Hale, 1927, p. 315; 1929, p. 234, fig. 229.—Arimoto, 1931, pp. 16-18, pl. 3, figs. 1-6.—Hiro, 1937, pp. 314-315, fig. 3, pl. 22, figs. 11-12.—Day and Morgan, 1956, p. 308. Caprella nodosa Templeton, 1836, pp. 192-194, pl. 21, fig. 7.—H. Edwards, 1840, p. 108.—Bate, 1862, p. 357, pl. 56, fig. 7. Caprella cornuta Dana, 1853, pp. 816-817; 1855, pl. 54, fig. 5.—Bate, 1862, p. 356, pl. 56, fig. 5.—Mayer, 1882, p. 68.—Chilton, 1921, pp. 90-91, fig. 4.— Oliveira, 1940, p. 1389. Caprella cornuta f. obtusirostris Dana, 18538, p. 817; 1855, pl. 54, fig. 6. Caprella attenuata Dana, 1853, pp. 817-819; 1855, pl. 55, fig. 1.—Bate, 1862, p. 364, pl. 57, fig. 7.—Mayer, 1882, pp. 67-68, figs. 24-25; 1890, p. 73.— Haswell, 1885, p. 1000. Caprella attenuata f. subtenuis Dana, 1853, pp. 818-819; 1855, pl. 55, fig. le. Caprella scaura f. typica Mayer, 1890, p. 71, pl. 4 figs. 48-49; 1903, p. 118.— Miyadi and Masui, 1942, p. 10.—Utinomi, 1947, p. 77. Caprella scaura f. diceros Mayer, 1890, p. 71; 1903, p. 118.—Miyadi and Masui, 1942, p. 10.—Utinomi, 1943a, p. 279; 1943b, p. 285, fig. 5; 1947, p. 77. Caprella scaura f. cornuta Mayer, 1890, pp. 71-72, pl. 4, figs. 50-51; 1903, pl. 118. Caprella scaura f. undetermined Mayer, 1903, p. 120. Caprella scaura f. hamata Utinomi, 1947, p. 77, fig. 7. DiaGNnosis.—Cephalon with anteriorly directed spine, pereonites 1-2 elongate in males, basis of gnathopod 2 approximately length of pereonite 2. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 41 Description.—Body with anteriorly directed cephalic § spine, female with variously developed spines on pereonites 1-7. Length of largest male 21 mm, female 12 mm, smallest ovigerous female 6 mm. Antenna 1 usually longer than one-half body length, flagellum with as many as 9 fused articles in males, up to 4 in females. Length of antenna 2 variable. Mouthparts typical of genus, lacinia mobilis of right mandible not distinctly 5-toothed. Propodus of gnathopod 1 with 2 proximal grasping spines, grasping margin of dactylus and propodus serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 2 elongate in males, palm with 2 strong teeth and distal rectangular projection; female propodus not so elongate as male, palm with proxi- mal spine, small distal tooth and distal rectangular projection. Gills elliptical. Propodus of pereopods 5-7 with 2 proximal grasping spines. Abdomen of male and female typical of genus except with raised medial projection. VartaTion.—The females with the most pronounced dorsal body spination had 1 knob at the posterior of pereonite 1, 1 pair of knobs above the gills on pereonites 3 and 4, 1 knob at the posterior of pereon- ite 4, 2 pairs of knobs at midlength of pereonite 5, 1 pair of knobs at. midlength of pereonite 6, and a pair of knobs at the posterior of peronite 7. This spination showed varous degrees of reduction from this pattern with the knob at the posterior of pereonite 4 usually being present. The males occasionally bore 2 pairs of knobs at midlength of pereonite 5 and a pair of knobs at midlength of pereonite 6. The number of fused articles in the flagellum of antenna 1 varied from 6-9 in males and from 2-4 in females. Mayer used this character for separating C. scaura f. cornuta from C. scaura f. typica and diceros since C. scaura f. cornuta does not have fused articles in the flagellum of antenna 1. Distrispution.—Type-locality: Riviere Noire, Mauritius. Other records: St. Croix and St. Barthélemy, Virgin Island; Vitoria, Rio de Janeiro, and 28° S., Brazil; South Africa; Mejillones, Chile; Cumberland Bay, Isla Mas a Tierra; Honshu, Kyushu, and the Inland Sea, Japan; Vladivostok; Sydney and Kangaroo Island, Australia. New records: Cocos Island, Costa Rica; off Mayagtiez, Puerto Rico; ha Sao Sebastiao and Santa Catarina, Brazil; False Bay, South Africa. Remarxs.—Mayer (1890, 1903) described 6 varieties of C. scaura to which Utinomi (1947) added a seventh, C. scaura f. hamata. Mayer’s varieties C. scaura f. typica (1890), diceros (1890), cornuta (1890), 42 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 h Ficure 17.—Caprella scaura, male; a, lateral view; b, gnathopod 1; ¢, maxilla 2; d, maxilla 1; 2, gnathopod 1; f, right mandible; g, abdomen; h, left mandible; 2, inner and outer lobes of maxilliped. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 43 Ficure 18.—Caprella scaura, female; a, lateral view; b, inner and outer lobes of maxilliped; c, gnathopod 2; d, maxilla 1; ¢, abdomen; f, gnathopod 1; g, righ mandible; A, left mandible. 279-475—68——4 44 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 and Utinomi’s C. scaura f. hamata do not bear a ventral spine between the insertions of gnathopods 2 as do Mayer’s varieties californica (1890), scauroides (1903), and spinirostris (1890). Dougherty and Steinberg (1953) separated C. scaura f. californica as a distinct species and reestablished Stimpson’s (1857) name C. californica. This action was justified; however, they did not state what should be done with the other two varieties which bear the ven- tral spine. These varieties are closely related and appear to be limited to the North Pacific. No material of the Asian varieties is available to me and I am not able to comment on their taxonomic position. The synonymy, therefore, includes only those references which refer to those varieties which do not bear the ventral spine. Barnard (1925) considered C. laevipes Mayer, 1903, a synonym of C. scaura. C. laevipes appears to be distinct from C. scaura since the pereopods do not bear grasping spines and Barnard’s synonymy has not been followed. The Caribbean material appears to be most closely related to C. scaura f. typica which has previoulsy been taken from St. Croix and St. Barthélemy. C. scaura has been taken on red and brown algae, sea grass, bry- ozoans, and on a sea urchin. Caprella septentrionalis Krgyer, 1838 Ficures 19-22, 51 Squilla lobata [not Miiller].—O. Fabricius, 1780, pp. 248-249. Caprella septentrionalis Krgyer, 1838, p. 318; 1842-43, pp. 590-596, pl. 8, figs. 10-19.—Boeck, 1861, p. 677; 1870, p. 276 (196); 1873-76, pp. 696-698.— Bate, 1862, p. 355, pl. 56, fig. 3.—Goés, 1866, p. 534.—Packard, 1867, p. 297.—Liitken, 1875, p. 159.—Schigdte, 1875, p. 224, pl. 5, figs. 1-8.— Norman, 1876, p. 209; 1886, p. 26; 1902, p. 483; 1905a, p. 26.—Miers, 1877b, p. 139; 1880, p. 69.—Meinert, 1877-1878, pp. 171-172; 1880, p. 495; 1890, pp. 184-185.—M. Sars, 1858 (1859), p. 150.—Hoek, 1882, p. 65.—Mayer, 1882, pp. 62-64, figs. 20-22; 1890, pp. 65-68, pl. 2, figs. 26-33, pl. 4, fig. 31, pl. 6, fig. 38; 1903, pp. 120-123, pl. 5, figs. 19-21, pl. 8, fig. 24.—Stuxberg, 1882, p. 764; 1887, p. 73.—Schneider, 1883, p. 30; 1884, pp. 130-131; 1891, pp. 111, 122; 1924 (1926), p. 60.—Koelbel, 1886, p. 42.—G. Sars, 1886, pp. 69, 89; 1895, pp. 659-660, 700, pl. 237, fig. 1.—Hansen, 1887b, pp. 173- 174.—Vosseler, 1889, p. 159.—Pfeffer, 1889 (1890), pp. 87, 94.—Klinckow- strém, 1892, p. 90.—Ohlin, 1895a, pp. 63-64, xvii, xix; 1895b, p. 486.— Vanhéffen, 1897, pp. 202, 203, 213.—Scott, 1899, p. 81; 1901, pp. 267- 268.—Ortmann, 1901, pp. 155-156.—d’ A. Thompson, 1901, p. 42.—Lénnberg, 1902 (1903), p. 50.—Holmes, 1904 (1905), p. 527.—Nordgaard, 1905, p. 185.—M. Rathbun, 1905, pp. 7, 78-79.—M. Grieg, 1907, p. 527.—Briggen, 1909, p. 43.—Stephensen, 1913a, pp. 223-225; 1913b, p. 68; 1916, p. 295; 1927a, pp. 148-149; 1927b, p. 13; 1928, pp. 384-3886, fig. 92 (5-10); 1929a, pp. 179-180, fig. 334; 1929b, pp. 20, 34; 1933, pp. 60, 77; 1935, p. 188; 1940, pp. 73-74; 1942, pp. 439-441, 502, 503; 1944b, pp. 136-1387, 148, 159, 162.— Bjérek, 1915, p. 36.—Derjugin, 1915, pp. 453, 456; 1928, p. 282.—Oldevig, CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 45 1917, p. 40; 1933, pp. 266-269, fig. 1-2 (p. 267), figs. 1-3 (p. 268).—J. Grieg, 1925, p. 22.—Johansen, 1925, p. 204; 1930, p. 94.—Shoemaker, 1926, p. 11; 1930, pp. 353 (135)-354 (136).—Gurjanova, 1929b, p. 70; 1931, p. 201.— Dons, 1935, p. 110.—Dunbar, 1942, p. 42; 1954, pp. 784, 788.—Schellenberg, 1942, p. 238, fig. 198.—Dahl, 1946, p. 22.—Utinomi, 1943c, pp. 296-297, fig. 10; 1947, p. 78.—Stock and Bolklander, 1952, p. 4.—Bousfield, 1956a, p. 32; 1956b, p. 144; 1958a, p. 321; 1962, p. 53.—Bousfield and Leim, 1958, p. 18.—Brunell, 1961, p. 7.—Prefontaine and Brunel, 1962, p. 256. Caprella cercopoides White, 1852, p. cevii, fig. 1. Caprella robusta Stimpson, 1854 (1853), p. 44.—Mayer, 1882, p. 66; 1890, p. 73. Caprella punctata [not Risso] Boeck, 1861, pp. 676-677; 187la, p. 277 (197); 1873-76, pp. 698-699, pl. 32, fig. 11.—Norman, 1886, p. 26; 1905a, p. 26.— G. Sars, 1886, pp. 69, 89; 1895, pp. 660-661, 700-701, pl. 237, fig. 2, pl. 8, fig. 3.— Briiggen, 1907, p. 238.—Nordgaard, 1911 (1912), p. 24.—Stephensen, 1928, p. 385, fig. 92 (8); 1933, pp. 60, 77; 1940, p. 74; 1942, pp. 442-443, 504, 505; 1944a, p. 50; 1944b, p. 159. Caprella Septentrionalis.—Herklots, 1861, p. 43. Caprella Stimpsoni Bate, 1862, p. 361.—Whiteaves, 1901, p. 220. [?] Caprella hystrix [not Krgyer].—Bate and Westwood, 1868, pp. 63-64.— M’Intosch, 1874, p. 272.—Koehler, 1884 (1885), pp. 112, 117; 1885, pp. 54, 61.—Bate, 1887, p. 175.—Bonnier, 1887, p. 354.—Robertson, 1886-87 (1888), p. 72.—Walker, 1895b, p. 475.—Norman, 1905b, p. 85.—Norman and Scott, 1906, p. 99. Caprella longicornis Boeck, 1871a, pp. 274 (194)- 275 (195); 1873-76, pp. 691-693, pl. 32, fig. 7. Caprella Lovéni Boeck, 1871a, p. 276 (196); 1873-76, pp. 694-696, pl. 32, fig. 8.— Meinert, 1877-78, p. 171.—G. Sars, 1895, pp. 662-663, pl. 238, fig. 2.— Stephensen, 1928, pp. 385-386, fig. 92 (10). [?] Caprella hystryxz.—Bate, 1878, p. 509. Caprella septentrionalis f. typica Mayer, 1890, p. 66. Caprella septentrionalis f. longicornis Mayer, 1890, p. 66, pl. 2, figs. 26-27, 33, pl. 4, fig. 31. Caprella septentrionalis f. nodigera Mayer, 1890, p. 66. Caprella septentrionalis f. polyceros Mayer, 1890, p. 66, pl. 2, fig. 32. Caprella septentrionalis f. parva Mayer, 1890, p. 66, pl. 2, figs. 28-31. Caprella monocera G. Sars, 1895, pp. 661-662, pl. 238, fig. 1.—Ohlin, 1895a, pp. villi, xiii, xvii, xix, 64-65.—Nordgaard, 1905, p. 185.—Stephensen, 1928, p. 385, fig. 92 (9); 1933, pp. 60, 77; 1940, p. 74; 1942, pp. 442, 504, 505; 1944b, p. 159. Caprella septentrionalis f. spinigera.—Hansen, 1895, p. 130. Caprella stimpsoni.—Holmes, 1904 (1905), p. 527. Caprella septentrionalis longicornis.—M. Rathbun, 1905, pp. 7, 78-79. Caprella septentrionalis stimpsont.—M. Rathbun, 1905, p. 7, 79. Caprella septentrionalis polyceros.—M. Rathbun, 1905, p. 7, 79. Caprella septentrionalis lovéni.—Stephensen, 1929a, p. 180, fig. 334. Caprella septentrionalis monocera.—Stephensen, 1929a, p. 180, fig. 334. Caprella septentrionalis punctata.—Stephensen, 1929a, p. 180, fig. 334. Caprella septentrionalis f. monocera.—Oldevig, 1933, p. 266, fig. 2 (p. 267). Caprella septentrionalis f. punctata.—Oldevig, 1933, p. 266, fig. 3 (p. 268). Caprella septentrionalis f. lovéni.—Oldevig, 1933, p. 266, fig. 2 (p. 268). Caprella lovéni.—Stephensen, 1940, p. 74; 1942, pp. 441, 504, 505; 1944b, p. 159, Diacnosts.—Body usually with numerous spines and _ tubercles, peduncle of antenna 1 rarely with setules, ratio of total length to 46 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 19.—Caprella septentrionalis, male; a, lateral view; b, abdomen; c, maxilliped; d, gnathopod 1; ¢, maxilla 1; f, right mandible; g, left mandible. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 47 Ficure 20.—Caprella septentrionalis, female; a, lateral view; b, pereopod 7; c, gnathopod 2; d, abdomen. length of basis of gnathopod 2 usually greater than 13.0, inner surface of gnathopod 2 with small tooth adjacent to poison tooth. Description.—Body spination variable. Length of largest male 20 mm, largest female 20 mm, smallest ovigerous female 9 mm. Peduncle of antenna 1 occasionally with dense setules. Length of antenna 2 longer or shorter than peduncle of antenna 1. Mouthparts typical of genus, right lacinia mobilis 5-toothed. Propodus of gnathopod 1 with 2 proximal grasping spines, grasping margin of dactylus and propodus serrate. Palm of propodus of gna- thopod 2 with proximal poison tooth and small tooth on inner surface, distally with small tooth, notch, and rectangular projection, antero- distal margin occasionally with projection; basis short and robust. Gills usually elliptical, occasionally oval and inflated. Propodus of pereopods 5-7 with pair of proximal grasping spines. Abdomen of male and female typical of genus. VARIATION.—Body spination varies from quite spinose to almost as smooth as in (. linearis. Usually the cephalon is furnished with at least a single spine. 48 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 The ratio of the total length to the length of the basis of gnathopod 2 varies slightly as illustrated in figure 22. DisTRIBUTION.—Type-locality: “It seems to be common in the Greenland seas***, but is not mentioned by Sabine and Ross**** ,,..***Sydproven, Julianchaab, Fiskenaesset, Godthaab and Nenertalik are those places from which it has been sent.”’ (Translated from Krgyer, 1838) Other records: Murman coast; Novaya Zemlya; White Sea; N. Russia; Norway to France and British Islands; Faeroe Islands; Jan Mayen; Iceland; East and West Greenland; Baffin Bay and Davis Straits; coast of North America from Hudson Bay to Maine. New records: Many localities south to Georges Bank. Remarks.—This species occupies almost the same habitat as C. linearis. It has been taken in the stomachs of the pollock Pollachwus (Scott, 1901) and the rock cod Gadus (Johansen, 1925). It ranges in depth from the surface to 1026 m. As evidenced by the long synonymy, this species exhibits a variety of body forms. Mayer (1890, 1903) viewed these forms as variants of the same species; however, Stephensen (1928, 1940) treated several of these forms as distinct species or subspecies. The material available to me of this species is quite large and intergradations between the forms are numerous. No geographical isolation of these forms is evident and therefore they probably represent only infrasubspecific variants. Perhaps ecological data would reveal some other type of isolating mechanism, but type of datum is not available to me. Figure 21 is a variant of this species, which was collected in Casco Bay, Maine. It corresponds to G. Sar’s (1895) concept of C. monocera and to Mayer’s C. septentrionalis f. longicornis. In common with C. linearis it bears numerous setules on the peduncle of antenna 1 and has elongated pereonites 1 and 2. Since the females of C. linearis and C. septentrionalis are frequently indistinguishable and the gnathopods are quite similar, this variant caused concern over the distinctiveness of these species because it might represent a hybrid. In figure 22 the ratio of the total length to the length of the basis of gnathopod 2 is plotted. The variant and males and females of C. septentrionalis are not significantly different in this character; however, they are significantly different from both the males and females of C. linearis. Relying on this character, the females of the two species can be separated and it justifies the inclusion of the variant within C. sep- tentrionalis. The problem of the possible species distinctiveness of Mayer’s varieties and Stephensen’s species and subspecies is still unresolved, and its solution will probably not be found until ecologic and genetic studies can be carried out. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 49 Ficure 21.—Caprella septentrionalis, male variant; a, lateral view; 0, gnathopod 2; c gnathopod 1. ? Caprella unica Mayer, 1903 FIGURES 23, 24, 55 Caprella unica Mayer, 1903, p. 127, pl. 5, fig. 39.—M. Rathbun, 1905, pp. 7, 79. Caprella grahami Wigley and Shave, 1966, pp. 289-296, figs. 1-5. Draenosis.—Cephalon without anteriorly directed triangular pro- jection, propodus of pereopods 5-7 with few setae but without grasping spines. Description.—Body smooth to spiny. Length of largest male 18 mm, largest female 8 mm, smallest ovigerous female 5 mm. Peduncle of antenna 1 with or without dense setules in male, female lacking setules. Mouthparts typical of genus except dactylus of maxilliped palp quite robust, right lacinia mobilis 5-toothed. Propodus of gnathopod 1 with 2 proximal grasping spines. Gnatho- pod 2 similar to C. linearis and C. septentrionalis. Propodus of pereopods 5-7 without grasping spines and with only few short setae. Abdomen typical of genus. 50 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 7.0 80 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 Ficure 22.—Ratio of total length divided by length of basis of gnathopod 2; a, Caprella septentrionalis, males, n=47; b, C. septentrionalis, variant males, n=10; c, C. septentrio- nalis, females, n= 42; d, C. linearis, females, n=16; ¢, C. linearis, males, n= 34. Vertical line represents the range, horizontal line the mean, stippled area two standard errors either side of the mean, and white rectangle one standard deviation either side of the mean. VaRIATION.—The body of this species varies in the amount of spination, larger individuals tending to be less spinose (compare figs. 23c, 24a, 24b). The peduncle of antenna 1 shows some variability in the density of setules; larger males tend to develop more setules. DistrrisutTion.—Type-locality: Albatross sta. 2253, 40°34’30”" N., 69°50'45’” W., 59 m. Other records: Southeastern New England, Long Island Sound, Vineyard Sound, Great Harbor in Woods Hole, passage between Vine- yard Sound and Buzzards Bay, Cape Cod Canal; 0.3 to 25 m. New records: St. John’s, Newfoundland; Casco Bay, Maine; off Cape Cod, 40°-43° N., 65°-72° W.; 37°31’ N., 74°52’ W. Remarks.—Wigley and Shave (1966) give an excellent description of C. grahami which they thought to be distinct from C. unica due to the presence of spines on the dorsal surface of the latter species. Mayer based his description of C. wnica upon a single immature male which was quite spiny; however, recent material collected from the area near the type-locality has yielded numerous specimens which intergrade between the smooth and spiny forms. Since the other characters of these two species agree quite closely and intergrades are present between the two body forms, C. grahami is suppressed as a Junior synonym of C. unica. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC BI J Ficure 23.—Caprella unica, male holotype; a, maxilla 1; b, gnathopod 1; ¢, lateral view; d, right mandible; ¢, maxilla 1; f, pereopod 6; g, maxilliped; A, right mandible. o2 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 24.—Caprella unica; a, lateral view of male with intermediate spination; ), lateral view of male holotype of C. grahamt; c, female gnathopod 2; d, male gnathopod 2; e, female pereopod 7; f, lateral view of female allotype of C, grahami. C. unica has been reported on two species of starfishes, Asterias forbest (Desor) and Asterias vulgaris Verrill. This association with echinoderms is unusual and has been found for Pariambus typicus (Krgyer) on Asterias and Solaster (Chevreux and Fage, 1925), Aeginella spinosa on Brisinga (Mayer, 1903), Caprella linearis on Asterias (Ohlin, 1895a, probably C. unica, p. 33), Phtisica marina on Asterias (Meinert, 1880), and I have found C. penantis clinging to the spines of Arbacia and C. scaura on an unidentified urchin. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC aa Deutella Mayer, 1890 Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae absent; mandibular palp 3-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1-x-1, 1, or 2, molar present; outer lobe of maxilliped larger than inner lobe; gills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4, 2-segmented, pereopod 5, 6-segmented, inserted at the posterior of pereonite 5; abdomen of male with pair of appendages and pair of setose lobes, female with pair of lobes, with or without setae. Type-species: Deutella californica Mayer, 1890 (by monotypy, subsequently designated by Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953). Remarxs.—The genus Deutella is presently composed of 4 species; D. californica Mayer, 1890; D. incerta (Mayer, 1903); D. mayeri Stebbing, 1895; and D. venenosa Mayer, 1890. Steinberg and Dougherty (1957) state they believe Luconacia incerta belongs to Deutella because differences between the two genera seem minor. The differences to which they refer are the lack of a definitive palmar surface on the propodus of pereopod 5 and the presence of swimming setae in Luconacia. There exist, however, several more important differences which are presented in table 1. It can be seen that the genus Luconacia differs from Deutella except for the serrate lacinia mobilis which D. mayeri shares with LZ. incerta. The remaining dif- ferences seem sufficient to separate Deutella and Luconacia; therefore, the genus Luconacia has been reestablished. Deutella mayeri and D. sp. Mayer, 1890, differ from the other species of the genus in haying only 1 or 2 setae on the terminal ar- ticle of the mandibular palp. D. mayeri exhibits many similarities with the species of Paracaprella, particularly P. tenuis which some- times bears a small 3-segmented palp with a terminal seta. D. mayeri TABLE 1.—Taxonomic characters separating Deutella and Luconacia Deutella Dertella Deutella Luconacia californica mayeri venenosa incerta Apical setae on terminal present present present absent article of maxilliped and projection on penultimate article Terminal article of no knobs no knobs no knobs knobs mandibular palp 1-x-1 1 or 2 I-x-1 1-x-1 Tip of male abdominal no papillae no papillae no papillae — papillae appendage fringe no fringe no fringe fringe Female abdomen lobes lobes lobes no lobes Insertion of pereopod 5 posterior posterior posterior midlength Right lacinia mobilis 5-toothed serrate 5-toothed serrate 54 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 and Mayer’s D. sp. may represent intergrades between the two genera. Since the mandibular palp of D. mayeri is not reduced in size as it is in Paracaprella, I have chosen to leave this species in Deutella, although its position is questionable. If D. mayeri and Mayer’s D. sp. are disregarded because of their apparent divergence from the other species of Deutella, then Luconacia and Deutella are separated geographically, Luconacia being restricted to the Atlantic and Deutella to the Pacific. Deutella californica Mayer, 1890 FIGurRE 52 Deutella californica Mayer, 1890, pp. 27-28, pl. 1, figs. 3-4, pl. 3, figs. 15-16, pl. 5, fig. 18—Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953, p. 44; 1954, pp. 169, 171, fig. 82f.—Steinberg and Dougherty, 1957, pp. 279-281, figs. 15, 21-23, 28.—Gardella, 1962, pp. 1-2.—Johnson and Juskevice, 1965, p. 39.—Johnson, 1966, appendix 4, p. 4. REMARKS.—This species was originally described by Mayer from Cape Mendocino, Calif. and later reported from Monterey Bay by Dougherty and Steinberg. Steinberg and Dougherty (1957) reported it as occurring at “. . . probably Port Aransas, Texas.”” The material they examined undoubtedly belongs to D. californica; however, no additional material of this species has been collected in the western North Atlantic, and it is probable that this species is not a member of the caprellid fauna of that area. D. californica can be distinguished from D. mayeri by its 1-x-1 setal formula for the terminal article of the mandibular palp, the 5-toothed lacinia mobilis on the right mandible, and the single dorsal cephalic spine. For a description and figures of this species, consult Steinberg and Dougherty (1957). Deutella mayeri Stebbing, 1895 Figures 25, 26, 52 Deutella mayeri Stebbing, 1895, pp. 400-402, pl. 15a.—Mayer, 1903, pp. 44-45. Draanosis.—Body without spines. Description.—Body smooth, anterolateral margin of pereonite 2 with triangular projection. Length of largest male 4 mm, female 3 mm. Mandible with 3-segmented palp, 1 or 2 setae on terminal article, penultimate article with single distal setae. Left mandible with 5- toothed incisor, 5-toothed lacinia mobilis, setal row of 3 serrate setae. Right mandible with 5-toothed incisor, apically serrate lacinia mobilis, setal row of 2 serrate setae. Palp of maxilla 1 with 3 or 4 apical spines and several setae, outer lobe with 4 or 5 apical spines. Inner lobe of maxilla 2 with 4 or 5 apical setae, outer lobe with 5 or 6 apical setae. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC na V Ficure 25.—Deutella mayeri, male; a, lateral view; b, maxilla 1; c, gnathopod 2; d, gnatho- pod 1; ¢, maxilliped; f, abdomen; g, pereopod 4; h, pereopod 3; i, labium; j, pereopod 5; k, maxilla 1; /, left mandible; m, right mandible. Outer lobe of maxilliped with 2 apical setae, 1 plumose and 1 non- plumose seta, and several medial setae; inner lobe with 3 or 4 apical setae of which 2 or 3 plumose; terminal article of palp with 2 or 3 distal setae, penultimate article with distal triangular projection. 56 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 26.—Deutella mayeri, female; a, lateral view; b, gnathopod 1; c, maxilliped; d, pereopod 3; ¢, abdomen; f, maxilla 1; g, maxilla 2; h, left mandible; 7, right mandible. Propodus of gnathopod 1 triangular with 1 proximal grasping spine; grasping margins of dactylus and propodus serrate, dactylus with distinct teeth on grasping margin. Palm of propodus of gnathopod 2 with proximal grasping spine, distal tooth and notch at midlength; dactylus smooth. Terminal article of pereopods 3 and 4 with 1 plumose and 2 non- plumose setae. Pereopods 5-7, 6-segmented, palm of propodus with pair of proximal grasping spines. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 57 Abdomen of male with pair of appendages and pair of setose lobes, female with pair of nonsetose lobes. DistrinuTion.—Type-locality: Antigua, West Indies. New records: Bahfa Fosforescente, Puerto Rico. Fallotritelia, new genus Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae absent; mandibular palp 3-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1-x-1, molar absent; outer lobe of maxilliped larger than inner lobe; cills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4, 1-segmented, pereopod 5, 6-segmented; abdomen of male and female with pair of lobes. Type-species: Fallotritella biscaynensis, new species (by present designation). Remarxs.—This new genus is closely related to Tritella Mayer, 1890, and Triliropus Mayer, 1903, but differs from these by the lack of a molar on the mandible, having the inner lobe of the maxilliped rounded instead of flattened, and by the lack of setae on the dactylus of the maxillipedal palp. Table 2 summarizes the differences between these genera. TaBLE 2.— Taxonomic characters separating Fallotritella, Tritella, and Triliropus | Fallotritella Tritella laevis, Tritella tenuis- Triliropus biscaynensis pilimana, ornata sima uncinatus Swimming setae on absent present absent absent antenna 2 Inner lobe of maxilliped round flat flat flat Dactylus of maxilliped no yes yes ? with setae Grasping spines on pro- 5 usually midlength proximal absent podus of pereopods 5-7 absent, 6 or proximal and 7 proximal Insertion of perecopod 5 posterior posterior midlength posterior to midlength Tritella tenuissima Dougherty and Steinberg, 1953, differs from the other species of Tritella in that swimming setae are lacking on antenna 2 and pereopod 5 is inserted near midlength on pereonite 5. These characters are found in Triliropus, and Tritella tenuissima should probably be transferred to this genus; however, since I have not examined specimens of Triliropus I will refrain from making the transfer at this time. The generic name is derived from the Latin term “fallo,” meaning false, in combination with Tritella, the name of a closely allied genus. 58 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Fallotritella biscaynensis, new species Ficures 27, 28, 53 Diacnosis.—Since this genus is monotypic, the characters of the genus are diagnostic for the species. Description.—Male holotype: Body spinose. Cephalon with single dorsal anteriorly directed spine. Pereonite 1 with single postero- dorsal spine. Pereonites 2-4 with trace of dorsal spine at midlength and with posterodorsal spine. Pereonites 5-7 without spines. Length 4 mm. Antenna 1 approximately length of pereonites 2-4, flagellum of 11 articles. Antenna 2 approximately length of peduncle of antenna 1. Mandibular palp 3-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1-5-1. Mandibles with 5-toothed incisor, lacinia mobilis toothed, 2 accessory plates on right mandible and 3 on left, 2 setae present. Palp of maxilla 1 with 2 apical and 2 medial setae, outer lobe with 6 serrate spines. Outer lobe of maxilliped with 3 apical setae and 1 seta at midlength on medial margin, inner lobe rounded with 2 apical setae; dactylus of palp slightly curved with grasping margin serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 1 triangular with 2 proximal grasping spines; grasping margins of dactylus and propodus not serrate, dac- tylus with single tooth and seta at tip. Propodus of gnathopod 2 with proximal grasping spine and distal notch, basis approximately length of pereonite 2. Gills elliptical and sometimes held with long axis parallel to body. Pereopods 3 and 4, l-segmented with single seta at tip. Pereopod 5 inserted posteriorly on pereonite 5, propodus without grasping spines. Propodus of pereopods 6 and 7 with 2 proximal grasping spines. Abdomen with pair of setose lobes, 2 setae on anterior end of abdomen; penes large and medial. Female allotype: Body spinose. Cephalon with single dorsal an- teriorly directed spine. Pereonite 1 with single posterodorsal spine. Pereonite 2 with trace of pair of dorsal spines at midlength and with single posterodorsal spine. Pereonites 3 and 4 with pair of dorsal spines at midlength and single posterodorsal spine. Pereonite 5 with trace of dorsal spine at midlength. Pereonites 6-7 without spines. Length 2.5 mm. Antenna 1 approximately length of pereonites 3-5, flagellum of 5 articles. Antenna 2 approximately length of peduncle of antenna 1. Mouthparts as in male except setal formula for terminal article of mandibular palp 1-4-1. Gnathopod 1 as in male. Gnathopod 2 as in male except propodal notch absent. Gills as in male. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 59 Ficure 27.—Fallotritella biscaynensis, male holotype; a, lateral view; b, left mandible; c, maxilliped; d, abdomen; e, gnathopod 2; f, gnathopod 1; g, pereopod 6; h, pereopod 5; 1, pereopod 3. 279-475—68——5. 60 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 3 Ficure 28.—Fallotritella biscaynensis, female allotype; a, lateral view; b, gnathopod 1; c, gnathopod 2; d, pereopod 5; ¢, right mandible; f, left mandible; g, maxilla 1; h, abdomen. Pereopods as in male. Abdomen similar to male except lobes separated by slight medially raised area. VariaTion.—The holotype was the largest male specimen. The smallest ovigerous female was 3 mm; however, the allotype had an empty brood pouch at 2.5 mm. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 61 The degree of spination of the dorsal surface of the pereonites varied considerably. The most spiny specimens had 1 posterior spine on perenoite 1, 2 at midlength, and 1 posterior spine on pereonites 2-4, and 2 spines at midlength on pereonite 5. Some of the specimens showed different degrees of reduction of these spines, usually losing the spines at midlength first. In some of the specimens, grasping spines were present on the propodus of pereopod 5. The mouthparts were rather consistent. The setal formula for the terminal article of the mandibular palp varied only from 1-3-1 to 1-5-1, and the outer lobe of the maxilliped occasionally had a seta at midlength on the medial margin in addition to 3 apical and 1 seta on the middle of the anterior surface. Distrinution.—Type-locality: Key Biscayne, Fla., on bridge pilings in Bear Cut, 2 m, July 15, 1966, 1 male holotype USNM 120179. Other records: Bermuda, Oct. 10, 1960, 1 male paratype USNM 120188. Soldier Key, Fla., Jan. 27, 1961, 1 male paratype USNM 120186. Hummelinck sta. 1413, East of Soldier Key, Fla., 2 m, Sept. 5, 1963, 1 male paratype USNM 120184. Soldier Key, Fla., 1-2 m, July 16, 1966, 2 male paratypes USNM 120185. Key Largo, Fla., July 9, 1966, 1 female allotype USNM 120180. Long Key, Fla., May 11, 1961, 1 male paratype USNM 120183. Tortugas, 1 female paratype USNM 120182. Freelance sta. 85-56, west shore of lagoon near Oyster Pond Landing, Barbuda, Apr. 6, 1956, 2 female para- types USNM 120187. Freelance sta. 47-56, off Pigeon Island, St. Lucia, 1-3 m, Mar. 22, 1956, 1 male paratype USNM 120181. Remarxs.—This species is named for Key Biscayne, Fla., where the holotype was collected. The only habitat records for this species are from red algae. It is difficult to detect this species since it is quite small and usually is covered with detritus. Hemiaegina Mayer, 1890 Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae absent; man- dibular palp absent, molar present; outer lobe of maxilliped larger than inner lobe; gills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4, 1- segmented, pereopod 5, 6-segmented; abdomen of male and female with pair of biarticulate appendages. Type-species: Hemiaegina minuta Mayer, 1890 (by monotypy). Hemiaegina minuta Mayer, 1890 Ficures 29, 30, 50 Hemiaegina minuta Mayer, 1890, p. 40, pl. 1, figs. 25-27, pl. 3, figs. 32-35, pl. 5, figs. 52-53, pl. 6, figs. 13, 33-34, pl. 7, fig. 4; 1903, p. 65, pl. 6, fig. 75.— Arimoto, 1930, pp. 45-47, fig. 2—? Barnard, 1937, pp. 134, 198.—Utinomi, 62 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 1947, p. 70.—Edmondson and Mansfield, 1948, pp. 206-207, fig. 3.—Stein- berg and Dougherty, 1957, pp. 281-283, figs. 8-11, 13, 29.—McCain, 1965, . 192. aes quadripunctata Sundara Raj, 1927, pp. 126-127, pl. 18. DiaGNosis.—Since this genus is monotypic, the characters of the genus are diagnostic for the species. Description.—Body smooth except for pair of ventral spines between insertions of gnathopods 2. Length of largest male 4 mm, female 3.2 mm, smallest ovigerous female 2.7 mm. Antenna 1 approximately length of pereonites 1-4. Antenna 2 slightly longer than peduncle of antenna 1. Left mandible with 5-toothed incisor, 5-toothed lacinia mobilis, setal row absent, numerous setules present between molar and lacinia mobilis. Right mandible similar to left except lacinia mobilis apically serrate instead of 5-toothed. Palp of maxilla 1 with 2 or 3 apical spines and 1 seta, outer lobe with 6 spines. Outer lobe of maxilla 2 with 4 or 5 apical setae, inner lobe with 3-5 apical setae. Outer lobe of maxilliped with 2 apical setae, 1 seta near midlength of medial margin, and larger specimens with 1 or 2 proximal setae on medial margin; inner lobe with 2 setae and 1 small spine; dactylus of palp with serrate grasping margin. Propodus of gnathopod 1 with 1 small proximal grasping spine on medial surface and large proximal knob covered with small pro- jections, dactylus not serrate on grasping margin. Propodus of enathopod 2 with proximal grasping spine, distal notch with slightly proximal spine, and distal bilobed tooth. Gills elliptical. Pereopods 3 and 4, 1-segmented with 2 or 3 apical setae. Palm of propodus of pereopods 5-7 concave with 5 or 6 proximal knobs, each with small spine. Abdomen of male and female with pair of biarticulate appendages, dorsal lobe bilobed. DistRrBuTion.—Type-locality: Off Amoy, China, at a depth of 15-46 m. Other records: Off Virginia; Port Aransas, Texas; Oahu, Hawaii, Tateyama, Honshu, Japan; 1°42.5’ S., 130°47.5’ E.; region of Fre- mantle, Australia; Krudadai Island, India; South Arabian coast. New records: Several localities near Bermuda; off Cape Hatteras, N.C.; Elliot Key, Fla.; Loggerhead Key, Tortugas; 29°44’ N., 88° 23.5’ W.; St. John, Virgin Islands; False Bay, South Africa; Bora Bora. Remarxs.—This species is easily identified by the unusual hex- agonal outline of the pereonites when viewed dorsally. When viewed in this position the gnathopods 1 are usually held in a posteriorly CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 63 Ww a ae s.\ J a me NS = £ SS \ Y SX Ficure 29.—Hemiaegina minuta, male; a, dorsal view; b, maxilliped; c, left mandible; d, pereopod 4; ¢, gnathopod 1; f, maxilla 1; g, gnathopod 2; h, abdomen; 1, pereopod 7; j, maxilla 2; k, right mandible. directed position and gnathopods 2 are held away from the body (figs. 29a, 30a). I have designated a lectotype from Mayer’s type-series which is deposited in the Copenhagen Museum. H. minuta has been taken in plankton tows and from Sargassum. 64 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 oO ee Ficure 30.—Hemiaegina minuta, female; a, dorsal view; b, gnathopod 1; ¢, gnathopod 2; d, abdomen; ¢, left mandible; f, maxilliped; g, pereopod 7. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 65 Hemiproto, new genus Flagellum of antenna 2, 2- to 4-segmented, swimming setae absent; mandibular palp 3-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1-1 or 1-x-1, molar absent; outer lobe of maxilliped equal to inner lobe; gills on pereonites 2-4; pereopods 3 and 4, 6-segmented, pereopod 5, 5-segmented; abdomen of male with 2 pairs of small uniarticulate appendages and pair of nonsetose lobes, female with 1 pair of uniarticulate appendages. Type-species: Hemiproto wigleyt, new species (by present designation). Remarxks.—This new genus is closely related to Protomina Mayer, 1903, in that the males of both genera have 2 pairs of abdominal appendages; however, in Protomina the appendages are biarticulate and positioned near the posterior part of the abdomen and in Hemi- proto the appendages are uniarticulate, one positioned near midlength and one anteriorly. Another character which these genera share is the elongation of the carpus of gnathopod 2. This character is not unique to the 2 genera since a slight elongation occurs in Phtisica antillensis and is probably not of generic significance. Zemiproto lacks a molar on the mandible; however, Mayer did not describe all of the mouthparts for his species, including Protomina. Since specimens of Protomina are not available to me, I cannot be certain that this character is useful for separating these 2 genera. The generic name is a combination of Greek terms, “hemi” meaning half, referring to the number of articles in the abdominal appendages as compared with Phtisica and Protomina, and ‘‘protos’” meaning first, which was the original name previously used for Phtisica. Hemiproto wigleyi, new species FicureEs 31, 32c-e, 50 DiaGnosis.—Since this genus is monotypic, the characters of the genus are diagnostic for the species. Drscription.—Male holotype: Body smooth. Length 7.5 mm. Antenna 1 approximately length of body, flagellum of 9 articles. Antenna 2 approximately as long as articles 1 and 2 of antenna 1, flagellum of 4 articles. Mouthparts as in Phtisiea marina except setal formula for terminal article of mandibular palp 1-2-1 and outer lobe of maxilla 1 with 4 extremely toothed spines and 2 nontoothed spines. Propodus of gnathopod | triangular with 4 proximal grasping spines, 1 large and slightly proximal to others, grasping margin finely serrate; dactylus not serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 2 with 3 grasping spines, 1 large and slightly proximal to others, grasping margin with numerous 66 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 31.—Hemiproto wigleyi, male paratype; a, lateral view; b, left mandible; c, labium; d, gnathopod 1; ¢, pereopod 4; f, abdomen. small spines and 4 or 5 small elevations on distal portion; carpus elongate, slightly shorter than basis. Gills on pereonites 2-4, gill on pereonite 2 smallest. Pereopods 3 and 4, 6-segmented, propodus with 2 or 3 grasping spines. Pereopod 5, 5-segmented propodus without grasping spines. Pereopods 6 and 7 missing. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 67 Abdomen with 2 pairs of small uniarticulate appendages and pair of nonsetose lobes, posterior appendage pair with hooked seta at tip, anterior appendage pair pyriform with seta at tapered tip. Female allotype: Body smooth. Length 4.4 mm. Antenna 1 approximately length of body, flagellum of 7 articles. Antenna 2 extending slightly beyond articles 1 and 2 of antenna 1, flagellum of 4 articles. Mouthparts as in male except setal formula for terminal article of mandibular palp 1-1-1. Gnathopod 1 similar to male. Propodus of gnathopod 2 similar to male except without elevations on distal part. Gills as in male. Pereopods as in male. Abdomen with pair of uniarticulate appendages and pair of lobes. VaARIATION.—The setal formula for the terminal article of the man- dibular palp varies from 1-1 to 1-2-1. The number of articles in the flagellum of antenna 1 varies from 6 to 11 and in antenna 2 from 2 to 4, Pereopods 3 and 4 occasionally have 3 grasping spines instead of the usual 2. Figure 32.—a and b, Paracaprella pusilla, large male; a, pereonites 1 and 2; b, dactylus of gnathopod 2; c-e, Hemiproto wigleyi; c, abdomen of female allotype; d, gnathopod 2 of male holotype; e, gnathopod 2 of female allotype. 68 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Disrripution.—Type-locality: Hancock Atlantic Exped. sta. A32-39, 3 mi. N. of Coche Island, Venezuela, 35-60 m, Apr. 15, 1939, 1 male holotype USNM 120167, 1 female allotype USNM 120168, 7 male and 6 female paratypes USNM 120169. Other records: Gosnold sta, 1556, off Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. (26° 10.6’ N., 80° 04.2’ W.), 32 m, May 26, 1964, 1 male paratype USNM 120170. Remarks.—The specific name is in honor of Roland L. Wigley of the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Laboratory at Woods Hole; Wigley collected one of the paratypes. Luconacia Mayer, 1903 Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae absent; mandibular palp 38-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1-x-1 with knobs, molar present; outer lobe of maxilliped larger than inner lobe; gills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4, 2- segmented, pereopod 5, 6-segmented and inserted near midlength on pereonite 5; abdomen of male with pair of appendages and pair of lobes, female with no appendages or lobes. Type-species: Luconacia imcerta Mayer, 1903 (by monotypy). Remarxs.—For a summary of the differences separating this genus from Deutella see the remarks under Deutella (p. 53). Mayer (1903) states that antenna 2 of Zuconacia bears swimming setae. Setae are present on antenna 2 but are no more developed than in many other genera he considered as not bearing swimming setae. Luconacia incerta Mayer, 1963 Figures 33-35, 52 Luconacia incerta Mayer, 1903, pp. 49-50, pl. 2, figs. 11-14, pl. 6, figs. 73-75, pl. 9, fig. 21, 40, 57.—M. Rathbun, 1905, pp. 7, 76—Sumner, Osburn and Cole, 1911 (1913), p. 656. Protellopsis stebbingii Pearse, 1908, pp. 30-82, fig. 4; 1912, p. 379.—Kunkel, 1910, pp, 111-113, fig. 43. Deutella incerta.—Steinberg and Dougherty, 1957, pp. 281, 285-286. DraGnosis.—Since this genus is monotypic, the characters of the genus are diagnostic for the species. DescripTion.—Body spination variable. Length of largest male 9 mm, largest female 8 mm, smallest ovigerous female 3 mm. Mandibular palp 3-segmented, setal formula for terminal article from 1-3-1 to 1-10-1. Left mandible with 5-toothed incisor, 5-toothed lacinia mobilis, setal row of 3 serrate setae. Right mandible with 5-toothed incisor, serrate lacinia mobilis, setal row of 2 serrate setae. Palp of maxilla 1 with 4 apical spines and several medial setae, outer lobe with 5 or 6 apical spines. Inner lobe of maxilla 2 with 4 or 5 CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 69 apical setae, outer lobe with 5-7 apical setae. Outer lobe of maxil- liped with 1 apical seta, 2 setae in notch near apical end of medial margin, and several setae on middle of anterior surface; inner lobe with 2 plumose and 2 nonplumose setae; grasping margin of terminal article of palp serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 1 triangular with 2 grasping spines; grasping margins of dactylus and propodus serrate, dactylus usually with Ficure 33.—Luconacia incerta, male lectotype; a, lateral view; b, left mandible; c, abdomen; d, right mandible; e, maxilliped; f, maxilla 1; g, terminal article of mandibular palp; 4, pereopod 7; 1, gnathopod 1. 70 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 34.—Luconacia incerta, female; a, maxilla 1; b, lateral view; c, maxilliped; d, maxilla 2; ¢, right mandible; f, abdomen; g, pereopod 3; h, gnathopod 1; 7, gnathopod 2; J, left mandible. distinct teeth on grasping margin. Propodus of gnathopod 2 with proximal grasping spine and well-developed tooth at midlength, palm setose; dactylus smooth. Smaller individuals show progressively less spination (fig. 35), but the anterolateral projection of pereonite 2 and the pleural projections tend to remain distinct. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC a Ficure 35.—Luconacia incerta, small male; a, maxilla 1; b, lateral view; c, gnathopod 2; d, maxilliped; ¢, gnathopod 1; f, abdomen, ventral view; g, abdomen, lateral view; h, maxilla 2; 1, pereopod 3; 7, left mandible. 12 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 A small male from St. John’s bears the normal pair of cephalic spines, but the body is otherwise different in spination. The pair of dorsal spines at midlength on pereonite 2 are represented by a single long spine. It also bears a single dorsoposterior spine and the antero- lateral projections are absent. Pereonites 3 and 4 bear a single large dorsal spine at midlength, a single dorsoposterior spine, and pleural development is indistinct. Pereopod 4 is uniarticulate. The other characters of this specimen agree with those of L. incerta. DistrisuTion.—Type-locality: Off Mobile Bay, Ala., Albatross sta. 2387, 29°24’ N., 88°04’ W., 59 m, 1 male lectotype, 1 male paralectoypte USNM no. 26000. Other records: Woods Hole, Mass.; Bermuda; Straits of Florida; several localities between the mouth of the Mississippi River and Cedar Keys, Fla. New records: Many occurrences from Woods Hole to Key Largo, Fla.; Port Aransas and Port Isabel, Tex.; off Yucatan; Virgin Islands; Barbuda; Barbados; Isla de Margarita; Aruba. Terminal article of pereopods 3 and 4 setose, basal article sometimes with distal setae. Pereopods 5-7, 6-segmented, propodus without palmar surface on pereopod 5; pereopods 6 and 7 more robust than pereopod 5, propodus with pair of proximal grasping spines. Abdomen of male with pair of uniarticulate appendages and pair of setose lobes, appendage with small apical papillae surrounded by fringe of small teeth; female abdomen without distinct lobes. VARIATION.—This species varies considerably in the degree of body spination. Larger individuals bear a pair of dorsal cephalic spines, a pair of dorsal spines at midlength, and an anterolateral projection on pereonite 2 and an anterolateral pleural projection on pereonites 3 and 4 of the male and on pereonite 3 of the female. Remarxs.—I have designated a lectotype from Albatross sta. 2387. The remaining syntypical series of Mayer’s are now designated as paralectotypes and their localities are as follows: USNM 26001, 1 male and 1 female from Albatross sta. 2389, 29°28’ N., 87°56’ W., 49 m; USNM 9709, 1 female from Albatross sta. 2390, 29°27'30’’ N., 87°48'30’" W., 55 m; and USNM 26002, 1 juvenile female from Vineyard Sound at Woods Hole. This species is widely distributed in the temperate and tropical areas of the western North Atlantic and has occasionally been taken in plankton tows. It has been collected on mangrove roots, Sargassum, Thalassia, sponges, hydroids, aleyonarians, and ascidians. Mayerella Huntsman, 1915 Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae absent; mandibular palp 3-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1, CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 73 molar present; outer lobe of maxilliped larger than inner lobe; gills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4, 2-segmented, pereopod 5, 2- or 3-segmented; abdomen of male with pair of uniarticulate appendages and pair of lobes, female with pair of lobes. Type-species: Mayerella limicola Huntsman, 1915 (by monotypy). RemMarks.—This genus is now composed of 2 species, M. limicola and M. redunca n. sp. The number of articles in pereopod 5 of the new species varies from 2 to 3 and the generic definition has been altered to include this variation. Mayerella limicola Huntsman, 1915 Figures 36, 50 Mayerella limicola Huntsman, 1915, pp. 39-42, pls. 5-6.—Procter, 1933, p. 256. Diaqnosis.—Abdominal appendage of male approximately length of penes; propodus of gnathopod 2 with proximal grasping spine and notch at midlength. Description.—Body smooth. Length of largest male 7 mm, no females examined. Peduncle of antenna 1 approximately length of pereonite 3. Antenna 2 somewhat longer than peduncle of antenna 1. Mandibular palp 3-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1. Left mandible with 5-toothed incisor, 5-toothed lacinia mobilis, setal row of 3 serrate setae. Right mandible with 5-toothed incisor, lacinia mobilis toothed but not distinctly 5-toothed, setal row of 2 serrate setae, molar present. Outer lobe of labium winglike, more robust than in most species of Caprella. Palp of maxilla 1 with 4 apical spines, 1 medial seta; outer lobe with 7 apical spines. Outer lobe of maxilla 2 with 7 apical setae, inner lobe with 5 apical setae. Outer lobe of maxilliped with 1 apical seta, 1 middistal seta set in notch, and several setae on anterior surface; inner lobe with 4 apical setae; dactylus of palp serrate on grasping margin. Propodus of gnathopod 1 triangular with 1 proximal grasping spine, grasping margin of propodus and dactylus serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 2 with proximal grasping spine and notch at midlength. Gills small, elliptical. Pereopods 3 and 4, 2-segmented, terminal article with 1 or 2 setae. Pereopod 5, 3-segmented, terminal article with 3 or 4 short setae. Pereopods 6 and 7, 6-segmented, propodus with numerous setae on palmar margin and occasionally with 1 grasping spine, dactylus slender and tapering. Abdomen of male with pair of uniarticulate appendages of ap- proximately length of penes and pair of lobes, penes medial. VaRIATION.—The males varied in the presence or absence of the single grasping spine on pereopods 6 and 7. The number of setae on 74 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 m Ficure 36.—Mayerella limicola, male; a, gnathopod 2; b, abdomen; ¢, lateral view; d, pereopod 6; e, right mandible; f, maxilliped; g, gnathopod 1; h, pereopod 4; 1, maxilla 1; 7, pereopod 3; k, left mandible; /, maxilla 2; m, labium; , pereopod 5. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 75 the terminal articles of pereopods 3 and 4 varied from 1-4, of which 1 was sometimes plumose. The number of setae on the inner lobe of the maxilliped varied from 3 to 4. Distrisution.—Type-locality: St. Croix River, New Brunswick, at a depth of 9-18 m. Other records: Several localities in the Bay of Fundy to a depth of 91m; Mount Desert Region, Maine. New records: 44°00’ N., 68°15’ W., 101 m; 39°54’30’’ N., 70°20’00’’ We. en. Remarxs.—The 3 males available to me were taken from greater depths than the material which was examined by Huntsman. I have been unable to examine Huntsman’s type material but my specimens agree closely with his description and figures. Thus far this species has been collected only in the Gulf of Maine to Cape Cod region. Mayerella redunca, new species Figures 37, 38, 50 Draanosis.—Abdominal appendage of male much longer than penes propodus of gnathopod 2 with grasping spine proximal of midlength and notch distal. Descrietion.—Male holotype: Body smooth. Length 7 mm. Antenna 1 approximately length of pereonites 2 and 3, flagellum of 9 articles. Antenna 2 little more than one-half length of antenna 1. Mandibular palp 3-segmented, terminal article and penultimate articles each with single seta. Left mandible with 5-toothed incisor, 5-toothed lacinia mobilis, setal row of 3 serrate setae. Right mandible with 5-toothed incisor, lacinia mobilis toothed but not distinctly 5-toothed, setal row of 2 serrate setae. Palp of maxilla 1 with 3 apical spines and 2 setae, outer lobe with 7 serrate spines. Outer lobe of maxilliped with 2 apical setae and several setae on anterior surface and several proximal setae, medial margin serrate; inner lobe with 2 plumose and 2 nonplumose setae; dactylus of palp wide at base, grasping margin serrate with subterminal seta. Propodus of gnathopod 1 triangular with 1 proximal grasping spine; grasping margins of propodus and dactylus serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 2 slender and elongate, grasping spine proximal to mid- length, notch distal, basis two-thirds length of pereonite 2. Gills oval or elliptical, third pair larger than fourth. Pereopods 3 and 4, 2-segmented, terminal article with single seta. Pereopod 5, 3-segmented, terminal article with 4 setae. Pereopods 6 and 7 missing. Abdomen with pair of long uniarticulate appendages recurving at tip; lobes setose, not distinctly separated medially. 279-475—68-_6 76 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 h Ficure 37.—Mayerella redunca, male holotype; a, lateral view; b, pereopod 5; c, left man- dible; d, pereopod 3; ¢, maxilliped; f, gnathopod 2; g, gnathopod 1; h, abdomen; i, maxilla 1; 7, right mandible. Female allotype: Body smooth. Length 2.25 mm. Antenna 1 approximately length of pereonites 2 and 3, flagellum of 4 articles. Antenna 2 almost length of antenna 1. Mouthparts as in male except dactylus of maxillipedal palp without subterminal seta. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 77 Ficure 38.—Mayerella redunca, female; a, lateral view; b, pereopod 5; c, maxilla 1; d, gnath- opod 1; e, pereopod 6; f, pereopod 5; g, pereopod 4; h, right mandible; 7, left mandible; j, abdomen; k, maxilla 2; /, maxilliped (d and f-/ of allotype; a-b and e of paratype). 78 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Gnathopod 1 as in male. Propodus of gnathopod 2 with proximal grasping spine, palm smooth and slightly convex. Gills as in male. Pereopods 3-5 as in male except penultimate article of pereopod 5 with 1 seta and pereopod 5, 2-segmented instead of 3-segmented. Propodus of pereopods 6 and 7 without grasping spines but with several setae, dactylus wide at base. Abdomen with pair of nonsetose lobes. Vaniation.—The only additional specimen of this species which was available is a 3.5 mm female with a well-developed brood pouch. This specimen agrees closely with the female allotype except the dactylus of the left side of the maxillipedal palp bears a small sub- terminal seta while the side does not and also pereopod 5 is 3- segmented. Distrisution.—Type-locality: Hancock Atlantic Exped. sta. A32-39, 3 mi. N. of Coche Island, Venezuela, 10°50’ N., 63°54’ W., 35-60 m, Apr. 15, 1939, 1 male holotype USNM 120176, 1 female allotype USNM 120177, 1 female paratype USNM 120178. Remarxs.—lI have placed this species in the genus Mayerella with some hesitation. It agrees with the generic definition of Mayerella in all characters which are currently in use; however, the abdomen of this species is quite different from M. limicola. The penes are not as long and are separated from one another, the appendages are quite long and recurved at their tips, and the lobes are not distinctly separated. The species name is derived from the Latin term ‘reduncus,” meaning curved back, referring to the recurving of the tip of the abdominal appendage. Metaprctella Mayer, 1890 Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae absent; mandibular palp 8-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1-x-y-1, molar present; outer lobe of maxilliped larger than inner lobe; gills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4, 1-segmented, pereopod 5, 6-segmented; abdomen of male with pair of appendages and pair of lobes, female with pair of lobes; pereonites 6 and 7 fused. Type-species: Protella haswelliana Mayer, 1882 (by monotypy). Metaprotella hummelincki, new species Fiaures 39, 40, 50 Metaprotella spec. Mayer, 1903, p. 48. Draanosts.—Body smooth except for 2 small humps dorsal to inser- tion of gnathopod 2, pereopods 3 and 4 approximately one-fourth length of gills; male abdominal appendage with papillae at tip. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 79 Description.—Male holotype: Body smooth except for pair of small dorsal humps above insertion of gnathopods 2. Length 7 mm. Antenna 1 longer than body length, flagellum broken. Antenna 2 approximately length of first 2 articles of peduncle of antenna 1. Mandibular palp 3-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1-10-1-1. Left mandible with 5-toothed incisor, 5-toothed lacinia mobilis, setal row of 3 serrate setae. Right mandible with 5-toothed incisor, lacinia mobilis toothed but not distinctly 5-toothed, setal row of 3 serrate setae, molar with large tooth on incisor side. Palp of maxilla 1 with 6 apical spines and 2 setae, outer lobe with 4 serrate spines and 3 nonserrate spines. Outer and inner lobes of maxilla 2 with 7 apical setae. Outer lobe of maxilliped with 3 apical setae and 2 setae in notch at midlength of medial margin, medial and lateral margins with nu- merous setules; inner lobe with 4 plumose and 2 nonplumose apical setae; palp with distal serrations. Propodus of gnathopod 1 triangular with single grasping spine, grasping margins of dactylus and propodus serrate. Propodus of gna- thopod 2 with proximal grasping spine and notch at midlength with shightly proximal tooth, patm moderately setose; basis approximately length of pereonite 2. Gills elliptical. Pereopods 3 and 4 approximately one-fourth length of gills with 5 or 6 apical setae. Pereopods 5-7 missing. Abdomen with pair of appendages bearing fringe of setae and papillae at tip and with distinct pair of lobes bearing single seta. Female allotype: Body as in male. Length 4.5 mm. Antenna 1 longer than body, flagellum of 12 articles. Antenna 2 approximately length of peduncle of antenna 1. Mouthparts as in male except palp of maxilla 1 with 4 apical spines and 4 setae, inner lobe of maxilliped with 4 plumose and 1 nonplumose setae, and outer lobe of maxilliped with 2 apical setae. Gnathopod 1 similar to male. Propodus of gnathopod 2 with prox- imal grasping spine, palm without notch. Gills as in male. Pereopods as in male. Abdomen with pair of lobes, each with 1 seta. VaRIATION.—In smaller individuals antenna 1 is much shorter than the body length and antenna 2 is as long as the peduncle of antenna 1. The setal formula for the terminal article of the mandibular palp varies from 1—2—1—1 to 1-12-1-1. The apical setae on the outer lobe of the maxilliped varies from 1 to 3 and on the inner lobe the number of nonplumose apical setae may be 1 or 2. Distripution.—Type-locality: Magueyez Canal, La Parguera, Puerto Rico, net haul close to bottom, Feb. 22, 1959, 1 male holotype 80 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 39.—Metaprotella hummelincki, male holotype; a, lateral view; b, right mandible; c, left mandible; d, maxilla 1; ¢, gnathopod 1; f, maxilliped; g, pereopod 3; h, maxilla 2; 1, abdomen, ventral view; j, abdomen, lateral view; k, gnathopod 2. USNM 120171, 1 female allotype USNM no. 120172, 3 male and 2 female paratypes USNM no. 120173. Other records: St. Croix, Virgin Islands. New records: Smithsonian Roebling Exped. sta. 124, Siguanea Bay, Isle of Pines, Cuba, 4-7 m, Apr. 12, 1937, 2 male and 5 female para- CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 81 : /1 Ficure 40.—Metaprotella hummelincki, female allotype; a, lateral view; b, maxilliped; c, pereopod 3; d, gnathopod 2; e, left mandible; f, right mandible; g, maxilla 1. 82 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 types USNM 120174. Hummelinck sta. 1423a, Bahia Fosforescente, Puerto Rico, 1 m, Sept. 17, 1963, 1 female paratype USNM 120175. St. John, Virgin Islands, 29 m, Mar. 17, 1906, 1 female paratype Copenhagen Mus. St. Croix, Virgin Islands, 7 m, Feb. 19, 1906, 5 male, 5 female, and 2 juvenile paratypes Copenhagen Mus. Remarks.—The genus Metaprotella was hitherto composed of 7 species, MM. africana Mayer, 1903; AZ. danae (Kossmann, 1880); M. excentrica Mayer, 1890; M. haswelliana (Mayer, 1882); M. makro- dactylos Stebbing, 1910a; AZ. problematica Mayer, 1890; and M. sandalensis Mayer, 1898. All of these species have spiny bodies or at least a cephalic spine with the exception of MZ. problematica which is almost smooth. Af. hummelincki differs from Af. problematica in that the latter species does not bear the papillae at the tip of the male abdominal appendage and the inner margin of the outer lobe of maxilliped is toothed and not covered with setules. Mayer (1903) gave a short description of a Metaprotella sp. from St. Croix. He stated that perhaps this species belonged to M. prob- lematica; it differs, however, in having oval gills instead of rod shaped. The gills in M. hummelincki are elliptical or cylindrical. Thus, I cannot be certain that Mf. hummelincki is the species to which Mayer’s M. sp. should be referred. It is unlikely that another species of Meta- protella is present in the Caribbean and since M. hummelincki has been collected from St. Croix, Mayer’s M. sp. has provisionally been assigned to this species. The species name is in honor of P. Wagenaar Hummelinck of the Zoblogisch Laboratorium in the Netherlands, who kindly supphed me with some of the material upon which this species is based. The only habitat record available for this species is from Thalassia. Paracaprella Mayer, 1890 Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae absent; man- dibular palp 0- to 3-segmented, when 3-segmented articles reduced as compared to Deutella, setal formula for terminal article 1, molar present; outer lobe of maxilliped larger than inner lobe; gills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4, 2-segmented, pereopod 5, 6-seemented; abdomen of male with pair of appendages and pair of lobes, female with pair of lobes. Type-species: Paracaprella pusilla Mayer, 1890 (by monotypy). Remarks.—See remarks of Deutella on p. 53. Paracaprella pusilla Mayer, 1890 FIGURES 32a-b, 41, 42, 53 Paracaprella pusilla Mayer, 1890, p. 41, pl. 1, figs. 28-30, pl. 3, figs. 45-47, pl. 5, figs. 48-49, pl. 6, fig. 10; 1903, p. 67, pl. 2, figs. 36-37, pl. 7, fig. 52.—Schel- CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 83 lenberg, 1928, pp. 677-678, 1939, pp. 1386-137.—Edmondson and Mansfield, 1948, pp. 208-209, fig. 4.—Barnard, 1955, p. 99—Day and Morgan, 1956, p. 303.—Steinberg and Dougherty, 1957, pp. 283-284, figs. 16, 19, 24, 30.—- McCain, 1965, p. 193. Caprella nigra Reid, 1951, pp. 283-284, 289, fig. 58. DraGnosts.—Males with large triangular projection on antero- ventral margin of pereonite 2; basis of gnathopod 2 short and ex- panded with proximal knob on posterior margin, propodus with shallow rounded notch at midlength. Description.—Male lectotype: Body smooth on dorsal surface; anteroventral margin of pereonite 2 with large triangular projection; pleura developed on pereonites 3 and 4, weaker on pereonite 4. Length 3.5 mm. Peduncle of antenna 1 setose, usually longer than antenna 2. Antenna 2 without swimming setae but densely setose. Mandibular palp not present, probably represented by single seta. Left mandible with 5-toothed incisor, 5-toothed lacinia mobilis, setal row of 3 serrate setae. Right mandible with 5-toothed incisor, apically serrate lacinia mobilis, setal row of 2 serrate setae. Palp of maxilla 1 with 3 apical spines and 1 lateral seta, outer lobe with 6 apical spines. Outer and inner lobes of maxilla 2 with 4 apical setae. Maxilliped missing. Propodus of gnathopod 1 with 1 proximal grasping spine, grasping margin of dactylus and propodus serrate. Basis of gnathopod 2 shorter than propodus, expanded with distal knob on_ posterior margin; propodus with proximal grasping spine and notch at mid- length with slightly proximal tooth; dactylus with proximal and distal knobs bearing numerous setae between knobs. Gills missing. Pereopods 3 and 4, 2-segmented, terminal article small with 2 setae. Pereopods 5-7 missing. Abdomen with pair of appendages and pair of setose lobes, ap- pendages with setae at base and on tip. Female: Body smooth except for small projection on anteroventral margin of pereonite 2 and pleura only slightly developed. Length of largest female 5 mm, smallest ovigerous female 4 mm. Antennae and mouthparts similar to male, maxilliped as in P. tenuis. Gnathopod 1 similar to male. Basis of gnathopod 2 short but not expanded and without proximal knob as in male; propodus similar to male except without notch. Gills subovate. Pereopods 3 and 4 as in male. Propodus of pereopods 5-7 with pair of proximal grasping spines, pereopod 5 much smaller than pereopods 6 and 7. 84 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 41.—Paracaprella pusilla, male lectotype; a, pereopod 4; b, maxilla 1; c, maxilla 2; d, labium; e, lateral view; f, left mandible; g, abdomen, ventral view; A, gnathopod 1; 1, abdomen, lateral view; 7, gnathopod 2. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 85 Ficure 42.—Paracaprella pusilla, female; a, lateral view; b, right mandible; c, abdomen; d, gnathopod 2. Abdomen with pair of lobes bearing 1 or 2 setae. VARIATION.—The largest male of this species was approximately 6 mm and it bore a very large projection on the anteroventral margin of pereonite 2 (fig. 32a). This projection becomes quite large in the larger males and may be almost absent in small males; however, even in small males it is sharp pointed and not rounded as in P. tenuis The depth of the notch on the propodus of gnathopod 2 varies from very slight in small males to very deep in large males. Distripution.—Type-locality: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Other records: Suez Canal; Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.; Port Aransas, Tex.; Kingston, Jamaica; Martinique; Brazil at 28° S.; tropical West Africa; Malembe, Congo; Durban, South Africa; Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Hawail; Amoy, China. New records: Lake Worth, Virginia Key, Key Biscayne, Sarasota Bay, St. Petersburg, and Panama City, Fla.; Grand Isle, La.; Port Isabel, Tex.; St. Thomas, Virgin Islands; Guadeloupe; Margarita; Curacao. Remarxs.—The males of P. pusilla differ markedly from those of P. tenuis by the large sharp-pointed projection on the anteroventral margin of pereonite 2, the proximal knob on the basis of gnathopod 2, and the presence of setae on the dactylus of gnathopod 2. Setae are occasionally present on the dactylus of large males of P. tenwis but this is not generally the case. A projection is present on the anterior margin of pereonite 2 in large males of P. tenuis, but its position is usually more dorsal, and it is more rounded than in P. pusilla. 86 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 The females of these two species are difficult to distinguish; however, the projection on the anterior margin of pereonite 2, although small in P. pusilla, is still smaller in P. tenuis, and the basis of gnathopod 2 is slightly longer in females of P. tenuis than in females of P. pusilla. P. pusilla has been taken from mangrove roots, sea grass, hydroids, and ascidians. A lectotype has been designated from the syntypical series which is deposited in the Copenhagen Museum. Paracaprella tenuis Mayer, 1903 Ficures 43, 44, 53 Paracaprella tenuis Mayer, 1903, p. 68, pl. 2, figs. 34-35, pl. 7, figs. 51, 58.—M. Rathbun, 1905, pp. 7, 77.—Sumner, Osburn, and Cole, 1911 (1913), p. 657.—McCain, 1965, pp. 192-193, figs. 1d-e, 2g—K. Paracaprella simplex Mayer, 1903, p. 68, pl. 2, figs. 38-39, pl. 7, figs. 53-57.— Cowles, 1930, p. 351.—Ferguson and Jones, 1949, p. 442. Deutella abracadabra Steinberg and Dougherty, 1957, pp. 277-279, figs. 14, 17, 18, 20, 27. Dracnosts.—Males with small triangular projection on antero- lateral margin of pereonite 2; basis of gnathopod 2 not expanded and without proximal knob; propodus with large nonrounded notch at midlength. Description.—Body smooth on dorsal surface, anterolateral margin of pereonite 2 with small rounded projection, pleura on pereonite 3 generally well developed, pleura on pereonite 4 present but usually weakly developed. Length of largest male 7 mm, largest female 5 mm, smallest ovigerous female 3 mm. Antenna 1 approximately length of pereonites 1-3; flagellum of males with 7-10 articles, females with 5-8. Antenna 2 slightly shorter than peduncle of antenna 1, both antennae with numerous short setae. Mandibular palp 0- to 3-segmented, terminal article of palp usually with 1 seta. Mandibles as in P. pusilla. Maxilla 1 as in P. pusilla except outer lobe with 5 or 6 spines. Outer lobe of maxilliped with 1 or 2 apical setae, inner margin with numerous setae; inner lobe apically rounded with 4-6 apical setae; penultimate article of palp with process, terminal article with several setae at tip. Propodus of gnathopod 1 with 1 proximal grasping spine, grasping margin of dactylus and propodus serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 2 similar to P. pusilla but notch at midlength more triangular and deeper in large males than in P. pusilla, dactylus usually tapered but occasionally similar to P. pusilla. Gills subovate. Pereopods 3 and 4, 2-segmented, terminal article small with 2 or 3 setae, basal article with 1 or 2 setae. Propodus of pereopods 5-7 CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 87 Ficure 43.—Paracaprella tenuis, male; a, pereopod 3; b, pereopod 5; ¢, gnathopod 2; d, lateral view; ¢, maxilliped; f, maxilla 1; g, pereopod 7 (drawn to same scale as pereopod Ds h, gnathopod 1; 7, left mandible; 7, right mandible; k, abdomen. 88 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 a Ficure 44.—Paracaprella tenuis, female; a, lateral view; 6, gnathopod 2; ¢, pereopod 4; d, abdomen. with pair of proximal grasping spines, pereopods 6 and 7 with several proximal knobs on palm, each bearing small spine, pereopod 5 smaller than 6 and 7 (fig. 43b and g, drawn at same scale). Abdomen of male and female similar to P. pusilla. VARIATION.—The development of the projection on the antero- lateral margin of pereonite 2 and pleura on pereonites 3 and 4 is related to size as in P. pusilla, larger males having larger projections and well-developed pleura. The mandibular palp varies from a small hump bearing a terminal seta to a 3-segmented palp with a seta on the terminal article. In no specimens were the palps reduced to a single seta as in P. pusilla. Distripution.—Type-locality: Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Other records: Gulf of St. Lawrence; Penneville, Maine; Great Egg Harbor, N.J.; Chesapeake Bay, Va.; Sapelo Island, Ga.; Alligator Harbor, Fla.; Ship Island, Miss. New records: Numerous localities between the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Sapelo Island, Ga.; Cumberland Sound, Fernandina, Tampa Bay, and Pensacola Bay, Fla.; Galveston Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, and Port Isabel, Tex. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 89 Remarks.—The characters which separate this species from P. pusilla are presented under the remarks of the latter species. P. tenuis has been collected from various red and brown algae, sea grass, sponges, hydroids, aleyonarians, bryozoans, and from hydroids attached to the carapace of the spider crab Libinia. This species has the peculiar habit of curling when preserved, which makes it relatively easy to sort from the other caprellid species. Pariambus typicus f. cumana (Mayer, 1903) Podalirius typicus f. cwmana Mayer, 1903, p. 65, pl. 10, figs. 6-7. Podalirius typicus f. camana.—Monterosso, 1915, p. 7. Pariambus typicus f. Cumana.—Chevreux and Fage, 1925, p. 442. Remarks.—Mayer described this form of Paériambus typicus from “Strand von Cumae” which Chevreux and Fage took to be Cuma, Venezuela. In Mayer’s faunal list at the end of his “Siboga’’ report (1903), he does not mention P. typicus in the material from the West Indies and South America so it is probable that he was referring to Cumae, Italy, instead of Cuma, Venezuela. Phtisica Slabber, 1769 Flagellum of antenna 2, 2- to 5-segmented, swimming setae absent; mandibular palp 8-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1-x-1 or 1, molar absent; outer lobe of maxilliped equal to inner lobe; gills on pereonites 2-4; pereopods 8 and 4, 6-segmented, pereopod 5, 5-segmented; abdomen of male with 8 pairs of appendages, female with 2 pairs of appendages, pair of lobes and raised anterior projection. Type-species: Phtisica marina Slabber, 1769 (by monotypy). Remarxs.—The generic name was probably derived from the Greek word ‘‘phthisikos’” meaning consumptive; however, Slabber does not give the derivation and therefore the original orthography should be retained. Phtisica antillensis (Mayer, 1903) Ficures 45, 54 Proto antillensis Mayer, 1903, p. 21, pl. 1, fig. 4, pl. 6, fig. 21. Draenosis.—Carpus of gnathopod 2 longer than merus, propodus broad medially with grasping spines at midlength. Description.—Male holotype: Body smooth. Length 1.5 mm. Antenna 1 approximately one-half body length, flagellum of 38 articles. Antenna 2, three-fourths length of antenna 1, flagellum of 2 articles. Terminal article of mandibular palp with 2 setae. Mandibles similar to P. marina with incisor, lacinia mobilis, and 2 additional plates; setal row less developed than in P. marina. Outer lobe of 90 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 45.—Phitisica antillensis, male holotype; a, lateral view; b, maxilliped; c, pereopod 4; d, gnathopod 1; ¢, abdomen; f, terminal article of mandibular palp; g, gnathopod 2. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 91 maxilliped with 2 apical setae, 2 setae distal yet slightly proximal to apical setae, and 2 proximal setae; inner lobe almost as large as outer with 1 large spine and several indistinct spines, anterodistal corner of medial margin with 3 large spines. Propodus of gnathopod 1 triangular, approximately as wide at base as long, with 3 proximal grasping spines. Propodus of gnathopod 2 broad at midlength with 3 grasping spines at midlength. Gills on pereonites 2-4, gill on pereonite 2 smaller than those on 3 and 4. Pereopods 3 and 4, 6-segmented, propodus smooth except for pair of small spines in distal notch, dactylus short and wide at base. Abdomen with 3 pairs of appendages, posterior 2 pairs biarticulate, anterior pair uniarticulate with single seta at tip. Distrisution.—Type-locality: St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, at a depth of 18-27 m. Remarks.—The above description is based on the young male holotype and only specimen of this species which is deposited in the Copenhagen Museum. The mouthparts and abdomen agree with those of P. marina, and there can be little doubt that this species belongs to the genus Phtisica. For differences between this species and P. marina see the discussion of the latter species. Phtisica marina Slabber, 1769 Fiaures 46, 47, 54, 56 Squilla acaudata pedibus quatuordecim . . .—Gronovius, 1760, p. 39, pl. 5, figs. 8-10. Phtisica marina Slabber, 1769, pp. 79-83, pl. 10, figs. 1-3.—Stebbing, 1888, p. 32.— Chevreux and Bouvier, 1893, p. 142.—G. Sars, 1895, pp. 646-648, pl. 223.— Walker, 1895a, p. 319; 1898, p. 170—Walker and Hornell, 1896, p. 54.— Scott, 1897, p. 141; 1901, p. 267; 1906, p.174—Gadeau de Kerville, 1898, p. 348; 1900 (1901), p. 184.—Chevreux, 1898, p. 483; 1900, pp. 118-119; 1901 (1902), p. 696.—Beaumont, 1900, p. 795.—Norman, 1902, p. 483; 1907, p. 370; 1908 (1909) p. 463.— Marine Biol. Assoc., 1904, p. 241; 1931, p. 198.— Norman and Scott, 1906, pp. ix, 98—Norman and Brady, 1910, p. 75.— Stebbing, 190la, p. 468——Nordgaard, 1911 (1912), p. 24.—Chichkoff, 1912, p. xxxv.—Barnard, 1916, pp. 283-284.—Chumley, 1918, pp. 34, 165.— Schneider, 1924 (1926), pp. 58-59.—Schellenberg, 1926, p. 465; 1927, pp. 721-722, fig. 104.—Stephensen, 1927a, pp. 145-146; 1927b, p. 13; 1928, pp. 378-380, fig. 91 (1-10); 1929a, pp. 176-177, fig. 328; 1929b, pp. 19, 34; 1935, p. 118; 1942, pp. 428-429, 502, 503; 1944b, p. 159.—Borcea, 1931, p. 677.— Schijfsma, 1931, p. 26.—Fage, 1933, pp. 113, 115, 117, 119, 125, 126, 127, 225.—Oldevig, 1933, p. 261, fig. 1—Pirlot, 1939, p. 78—Fiorencis, 1940, pp. 11-12, fig. 1, pl. 1, figs. 1-2—Goodhart and Harrison, 1940, p. 109.— Bertrand, 1941, p. 16—A. Carausu, 1941, p. 11—Carausu and Carausu, 1942, pp. 79-80.—Dahl, 1946, p. 22.—Ruffo, 1946, p. 53.—Enequist, 1949, pp. 392, 402.—Rancurel, 1949, p. 168.—Spooner, 1950, p. 253.—Reid, 1951, pp. 281-282, 289.—Ruffo and Wieser, 1952, p. 21.—S. Carausu, 1956, p. 132.—Costa, 1960a, pp. 99, 100; 1960b, p. 104; 1961, p. 271.—Gottlieb, 1960, 279—-475—68———_7 92 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 pp. 161, 163, 164—Toulmond and Truchot, 1964, p. 34.—McCain, 1966, p. 92. Squilla ventricosa Miller, 1776, p. 197.—Abildgaard, 1788, pp. 20-21, pl. 56, figs. 1-3. Cancer (Gammarellus) ventricosus.—Herbst, 17938, pp. 144-145, pl. 36, fig. lla, b. Caprella ventricosa.—Bosc, 1801-02, p. 156.—Latreille, 1802-03, p. 327; 1803, p. 333. Proto Pedata Leach, 1814, p. 433. Cancer Gammarus pedatus—Montagu, 1915, pp. 6-7, pl. 2, fig. 6. Leptomera rubra Lamarck, 1818, p. 172. Proto .—Latreille, 1818, p. 9, pl. 336, fig. 38. Leptomera pedata.—Lamarck, 1818, pp. 172-173.—Guérin, 1829-44, p. 25, pl. 28, fig. 3. —H. Edwards, 1840, p. 109.—Krgyer, 1842-43, pp. 607-613, pl. 7, figs. 13-23—Rathke, 1843, pp. 97-98.—Gosse, 1855, p. 131, fig. 224.— Liljeborg, 1856, p. 182.— Maitland, 1874, p. 245. Proto pedatus.—Fleming, 1823, pp. 296-297.—Johnston, 1835, pp. 672-674, fig. 73.—Couch, 1864, p. 99. Proton pedatum.—Desmarest, 1823, p. 363, pl. 46, fig. 3; 1825, pp. 276-277, pl. 46, fig. 3.—Bouchard-Chantereaur, 1823, p. 18. Cancer (Leptomera) rubra.—Latreille, 1836, p. 217. Cancer (Leptomera) pedata.—Latreille, 1836, p. 217. Leptomera ventricosa.—H. Edwards, 1840, p. 110. Proto pedatum.—W. Thompson, 1944, p. 4385.—White, 1847, p. 92.—Cocks, 1849, p. 83. Proto pedata.—White, 1850, p. 61; 1857, p. 218.—Bate, 1856, p. 60; 1857, p. 151; 1862, p. 382; 1862, pp. 349-350, pl. 55, fig. 1; 1878, p. 508; 1887, p. 175.— Boeck, 1861, p. 670.—McAndrew, 1861, p. 28.—Bate and Westwood, 1868, pp. 38-41.—Brady and Robertson, 1869, p. 361.—Parfitt, 1873, p. 250.— Haller, 1879a, p. 230; 1879b, p. 398.—Hoek, 1879, various pp., pl. 5, fig. 10, pl. 7, figs. 15-16, pl. 8, figs. 1-3—Delage, 1881, pp. 132-133, 153, pl. 10, fig. 7.—Fowler, 1886, p. 217.—Schneider, 1891, pp. 111, 122.—Walker, 1895b, p. 474.— Ussing, 1952, pp. 45-47. Proto elongatus Dana, 1853, pp. 45-47. Proto Goodsirii Bate, 1856, p. 60; 1857, p. 151; 1862, p. 350, pl. 55, fig. 2; 1887, p. 175.—White, 1857, p. 218—McAndrew, 1861, p. 28.—Bate and West- wood, 1868, pp. 42-43.—Boeck, 187la, p. 268 (188); 1873-76, pp. 671- 672, pl. 32, fig. 2—Delage, 1881, pp. 182-133, 153, pl. 10, fig. 7—Bonnier, 1887, p. 349.—Robertson, 1886-87 (1888), p. 70.—Walker, 1895b, p. 475. Naupredia tristis van Beneden, 1861, pp. 97-99, 146, pl. 17.—Maitland, 1874, p. 246.—Pelseneer, 1886, p. 218. Proto elongata.—Bate, 1862, p. 350, pl. 55, fig. 3. Proto ventricosa.—Boeck, 187la, pp. 268 (188)—269 (189); 1873-76, pp. 672- 674, pl. 32, fig. 3.—Metzger, 1875, p. 278.—Meinert, 1880, pp. 494-495.— Mayer, 1882, pp. 22-25, pl. 1, fig. 1, pl. 3, figs. 16-29, pl. 4, figs. 12-13, pl. 5, figs. 1-5; 1890, pp. 12-13, pl. 3, figs. 4-5, pl. 5, figs. 3-6, pl. 6, fig. 1, pl. 7, fig. 1; 1903, pp. 20-21, pl. 6, fig. 23.—Blane, 1884, pp. 85-87, pl. 5, figs. 115-121.—Collin, 1884, p. 21.—Carus, 1885, p. 387.—Henderson, 1885, p. 311.—Guerne, 1886, p. XLIV.—Gadeau de Kerville, 1886 (1887), p. 82.—Bonnier, 1887, pp. 349-350.—Chevreux, 1887a, pp. 317, 335; 1888, p. 34.—Barrois, 1888, pp. 55-56, 76.—Robertson, 1886-87 (1888), pp. 69- 70.—Scott, 1887 (1888), p. 250.—Hoek, 1889, pp. 232-233.—Meinert, 1890, p. 183.—Gourret, 1892, pp. 16, 25.—Lameere, 1895, p. 570.—Sovinskii, CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 93 1895, pp. 255-256; 1898, pp. 502, 511, 512, 513, 514.—Sokolwsky, 1900, p. 161, pl. 3, fig. 15.—d’A. Thompson, 1901, p. 41.—Graeffe, 1902, p. 19.— Loénnberg, 1902 (1903), p. 50.—Tattersall, 1913, pp. 20, 22.—Monterosso, 1915, pp. 3-6.—Oliveira, 1940, p. 140.—S. Carausu, 1956, p. 133. Proto Goodsiri.—Stebbing, 1876, p. 78.—Haller, 1879a, p. 231; 1879b, pp. 398- 399, pl. 22, figs. 23-25.—Hansson, 1882 (1883), p. 77.—Chevreux, 1887b, p. 579; 1888, p. 34. Proto Ventricosa.—Meinert, 1877-78, pp. 166-168. Leptomera pedata (Gammarus).—M. Sars, 1858 (1859), p. 150. Proto goodsiri.—Stebbing, 1879, p. 521.—Chevreux, 1887a, pp. 318, 335. Proto brunneovittata Haller, 1879a, p. 231; 1879b, pp. 399-400, pl. 22, figs. 19- 22.— Mayer, 1882, p. 25; 1890, p. 14.—Carus, 1885, p. 387. Gammarus pedatus.—Abildgaard, 1789, pp. 33-34, pl. 101, figs. 1-2. Phthisica marina.—Norman, 1886, p. 26; 1905, p. 26.—Allen and Todd, 1900, pp. 166, 174, 203.—Bjorcx, 1915, p. 35.—Chevreux and Fage, 1925, pp. 434-436, fig. 422.—Schellenberg, 1942, pp. 234-235, fig. 192—Marine Biol. Assoc., 1957, pp. 232-233. Proto spec. Mayer, 1903, p. 21. Phthisica acaudata.—Reibisch, 1906, pp. 214-216, 219, 220, 221, 222, 229, 230, 232, 233.—Zernov, 1913. pp. 68, 127, 233. Phtisica acaudata.—Tichy, 1911, pp. 1125-1127, 1133, 1134.—Borcea, 1931, p. 702.—Carausu, 1956, p. 132. Phytisca marina.—Crawshay, 1912, p. 351. Phtysica acaudata.—Borcea, 1934, p. 404. Phiisica antillensis [not Mayer].—Pequegnat, 1966, p. 25. DraGcnosis.—Carpus of gnathopod 2 shorter than merus, propodus with greatest width proximal and with proximal grasping spines. Description.—Body smooth. Length of largest male 14 mm, largest female 13 mm, smallest ovigerous female 3.7 mm. Antenna 1 variable in length from one-half to length of body. Antenna 2 approximately equal in length to peduncle of antenna 1, flagellum of 3-5 articles. Mandibular palp 3-segmented, setal formula for terminal article varies from 1-1-1 to 1-6-1. Left mandible with 5-toothed incisor, 5-toothed lacinia mobilis, 2 additional plates, setal row of 7 or 8 short blunt setae and 3 longer apically serrate setae. Right mandible with 5-toothed incisor, lacinia mobilis smooth, 2 additional plates, setal row of 6 or 7 short setae and 2 longer apically serrate setae. Outer lobe of labium winglike, both lobes quite setose. Palp of maxilla 1 with 3 or 4 apical spines of which 2 sometimes serrate and with 3 or 4 proximal setae, outer lobe with 6 apical spines which become bifid or serrate in larger individuals. Outer lobe of maxilliped with 1 apical seta, 1 short apical spine, and 2-5 proximal setae along medial margin; inner lobe as long as outer lobe and nearly fused along medial margins, mediodistal corner with 1 very large serrate spine, 1 small spine, and 1 slightly lateral marginally serrate spine, lateral margin of lobe sometimes toothed; article 2 of palp robust. 94 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Propodus of gnathopod 1 triangular with 4 or 5 grasping spines, grasping margin without serrations but with numerous short spines; dactylus not serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 2 with 1 large and 1 small proximal grasping spine, palm with numerous short spines and few setae. Gills elliptical, gill on pereonite 2 smallest. Pereopods 3 and 4, 6-segmented, palm of propodus with 3 short spines. Pereopod 5, 5-segmented, palm of propodus without spines, dactylus approximately one-half propodus length, basis approximately twice propodus length. Pereopods 6 and 7, 6-segmented with 2 proximal grasping spines, 1 medial spine, and 1 distal spine. Abdomen of male with 2 pairs of biarticulate appendages and pair of pyriform appendages, each pyriform appendage terminating in seta; female with 2 pairs of biarticulate appendages, pair of lobes, and anterior raised projection. VariaTion.—Included in description. DistripuTion.—Type-locality: No locality given. Other records: Northern Norway to the Mediterranean Sea; British Islands; Azores; Canary Islands; Mediterranean and Black Seas; tropical West Africa; South Africa; 25°26’30’’ N., 80°02’ W.; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. New records: Numerous localities from off Cape Hatteras, N.C. to the Tortugas and the west coast of Florida to Panama City; St. John, Virgin Islands; Cubagua and Margarita Islands, Venezuela; Cape la Vela, Colombia. ReEmARKS.—Gronovius (1760) described a caprellid which he called “Squilla acaudata pedibus quatuordecim . . .’”’ and included several figures which appear to be P. marina, Reibisch (1906) believed that Gronovius’ paper followed the rules of binomial nomenclature so he chose to use the name P. acaudata. It appears that the term acaudata was used in a descriptive rather than a nominal sense, so I have chosen to use Slabber’s name which meets the requirements for validity. The genus Phtisica is presently composed of 3 species, P. antillensis (Mayer, 1903), P. marina Slabber, 1769, and P. tuberculata (Guiler, 1954). In his description of P. tuberculata, then Proto tuberculata, Guiler states that his species has gills on pereonites 3 and 4 and that the abdomen bears 2 pairs of rudimentary appendages. These char- acters are not consistent with the generic characteristics of Phtisica, and it would seem that P. twberculata should be placed in a different genus, perhaps Paraproto; however, material of this Tasmanian species is not available to me and such a change is not possible at this time. Mayer (1903) gives a description of a Proto spec., stating that it differs from P. marina because the first pair of abdominal append- CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 95 d Ficure 46.—Phtisica marina, male; a, lateral view; b, abdomen; c, gnathopod 2; d, gnathopod 1. ages are strikingly small. I have examined the material upon which his description was based but I cannot agree that these appendages are any smaller than in P. marina, so this species is included in the synonymy of P. marina. Phtisica marina differs from P. antillensis in that the carpus of gnathopod 2 is longer than the merus and the propodus of gnathopod 2 is expanded at midlength in the latter species. 96 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 47.—Phtisica marina, female; a, lateral view; b, gnathopod 2; c, gnathopod 1; d, pereopod 3; e, maxilla 2; f, maxilla 1; g, terminal articles of mandibular palp; 4, maxil- liped; i, right mandible; 7, left mandible; k, abdomen. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 97 P. marina is widely distributed in the warmer parts of the Atlantic. It has been collected in plankton tows (fig. 56) at the surface and Stephensen (1927a) reports this species from a depth of 660 m. The habitat does not seem specific because it has been reported on green apd brown algae, sea grass, sponges, hydroids, and bryozoans. Boeck (1873-76, p. 671) reports this species on the sea turtle Chelonia; however, he cites van Beneden, 1861, as the authority. Van Beneden’s record was for Caprella andreae and not Phtisica. It has also been found among the hydroids and algae which were attached to the carapace of the spider crab Maja. Meinert (1880) cites this species as occurring on the starfish Asterzas. There are several records of this species from the guts of fishes such as the blenny, Blennius, cod Gadus dragon net, Callionymus, and the skate, Raja. Costa (1960b) reports that P. marina is predatory on Caprella acanthifera. Costa states the P. marina grasps the prey with gnathopod 2 and the prey seems almost incapable of violent movement. It seems, therefore, that some venom may be introduced by the poison tooth. Proaeginina Stephensen, 1940 Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae absent; mandibular palp 3-segmented, setal formula for terminal article 1-x-1, molar present; outer lobe of maxilliped larger than inner lobe; gills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4 absent, pereopod 5, 6-segmented ; abdomen of male and female with 2 pairs of appendages. Type-species: Parvipalpus norvegicus Stephensen, 1931 (by monotypy). Remarxs.—Stephensen (1931, 1940, 1942) stated that the flagel- lum of antenna 2 is uniarticulate; however, both of the Iceland speci- mens and the Cape Cod specimen which were available to me bear a small article at the tip of the flagellum which is clearly defined by a suture. In Stephensen’s (1944a, p. 46) list of the important characters of new genera described since Mayer’s (1903) last monograph, he stated that the number of setae on the terminal article of the mandib- ular palp of Proaeginina is greater than 2. Although true, I have altered the generic description to include the 1-x-1 setal formula and have also included the biarticulate flagellum on antenna 2. Proaeginina norvegica (Stephensen, 1931) Fiaures 48, 54 Parvipalpus norvegicus Stephensen, 1931, pp. 1-7, figs. 1-3. Proaeginina norvegica.—Stephensen, 1940, pp. 70-72, fig. 8; 1942, pp. 433, 502, 503, figs. 68-69; 1944a, pp. 49-50; 1944b, p. 159.—McCain, 1966, p. 92, Diaenosis.—Since this genus is monotypic, the characters of the genus are diagnostic for the species. 98 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Description.—Body smooth and quite slender, cephalon separated from pereonite 1 by faint suture; however, not articulated. Length of largest male 32 mm, largest female 23 mm. Articles in flagellum of antenna 1 variable in number, increasing with increasing size of individual. Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, terminal article very small. Mandible with 3-segmented palp, setal formula for terminal article varying from 1-5-1 to 1-27-1. Left mandible with 5-toothed incisor, 5-toothed lacinia mobilis, setal row of 3 serrate setae. Right mandible with 5-toothed incisor, lacinia mobilis apically serrate, setal row of 2 serrate setae. Palp of maxilla 1 with 4-7 short apical spines and 3 or 4 setae on anterior surface; outer lobe with 7 apical spines, tending to bifurcate with increased size of individual. Inner and outer lobes of maxilla 2 variably setose. Outer lobe of maxilliped with 2 apical setae, 1 long apical spine, and 3-7 small marginal spines; inner lobe with 2 small spines, 6-12 apical setae of which 0-10 plumose; dactylus of palp serrate at tip. Propodus of gnathopod 1 triangular with 2 proximal grasping spines, grasping margins of dactylus and propodus serrate. Propodus of gnathopod 2 with proximal poison tooth, grasping margin slightly serrate proximally; dactylus not serrate. Pereopods 5-7, 6-segmented, propodus of male pereopod 5 with pair of distal grasping spines, propodus of pereopods 6-7 of male and female without grasping spines. Abdomen of both male and female with 2 pairs of biarticulate appendages. VaRIATION.—A comparison of a male and female (32 and 23 mm respectively) from Thor sta. 57 near Iceland with the small female (7.5 mm) from off Cape Cod showed that no variation exists which cannot be accounted for by increased size of the animal. The setal formula for the terminal article of the mandibular palp in the Cape Cod female was 1-5-1 for the left mandible and 1-6-1 for the right mandible. In the Zhor female the setal formula for both mandibles was 1-27-1 and for the male it was 1-21-1. Six nonplumose setae are present on the inner lobe of the maxilliped of the Cape Cod female, 8 or 9 on the Thor male, of which 3 or 4 are plumose, and 12 on the Thor female with 10 plumose. Disrripution.—Type-locality: Rognsund, off NE. corner of the Island of Stjerngy (N. Norway, about 70°40’ N.), at a depth of 200-350 m. Other records: Iceland, 63°21’ N., 16°22’ W., 500-560 m; Davis Straits, 63°06’ N.,"56°00’ W., 2258 m, and 61°50’ N., 56°21’ W., 2702 m. New record: Off Cape Cod, 42°00’ N., 68°34’ W., 174 m. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 99 Ficure 48.—Proaeginina norvegica; a, male lateral view; b, pereopod 5; ¢c, female abdomen, lateral view; d, female lateral view; ¢, pereopods 6 and 7; f, gnathopod 2; g, terminal articles of antenna 2; h, terminal articles of antenna 2 (Thor female); 7, gnathopod 1; j, maxilliped; k, abdomen, lateral view; /, maxilla 1; m, left mandible; m, right mandible (a-e after Stephensen, 1942; f-g and i-n of small female). 100 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Pseudaeginella Mayer, 1890 Flagellum of antenna 2 biarticulate, swimming setae absent; man- dible with 3-segmented palp, setal formula for terminal article 1-3-1, molar?; outer lobe of maxilliped larger than inner lobe; gills on pereonites 3 and 4; pereopods 3 and 4 absent, pereopod 5, 6-segmented; abdomen of male and female without appendages. Type-species: Aeginella tristanensis Stebbing, 1888 (by monotypy). Pseudaeginella antiguae Barnard, 1932 Fieure 51 Pseudaeginella tristanensis [not Stebbing].—Stebbing, 1895, p. 402.—Mayer, 1903, p. 59. Pseudaeginella antiguae Barnard, 1932, p. 301. Remarxks.—This species was described by Mayer (1908) and Steb- bing (1895) as P. tristanensis from specimens collected in Antigua, West Indies. Barnard later changed the name of these specimens to P. antiguae with the following comment: In view of these specimens it becomes very unlikely that the sepcimens (Stebbing says one; Mayer says two) from Antigua are conspecific. The female according to Mayer (1903, p. 59) has the head spine and single medio-dorsal spines on segments 1-3, but also paired rounded tubercles in the middle of segments 3 and 4. For this species I therefore propose the name antiguae. P. tristanensis does not have paired rounded tubercles at the mid- length of pereonites 3 and 4 and therefore Barnard is probably correct in his separation of these two species. Barnard’s figures of P. tristanensis bear a remarkable similarity to Fallotritella biscaynensis; however, none of the references mentioned appendages in Pseudaeginella on pereonites 3 and 4 and I must presume their absence. It may be found that appendages are present on pereonites 3 and 4 in the two species of Pseudaeginella; if so, then Fallotritella would probably fall as a junior synonym of this genus. Material of Pseudaeginella was not available to me, and the location of the type material is not known to me. Ecology Most caprellids seem to be very nonspecific as to the substrate upon which they live; however, most need something to which they can cling and therefore are not found on bare sandy or muddy bot- toms. Species such as Caprella equilibra and Caprella penantis have been collected on various algae, sea grasses, sponges, hydroids, sty- lasterines, alcyonarians, zoantharians, bryozoans, ascidians, and in several unusual habitats. Some caprellids, however, do have a fairly specific habitat preference. Caprella unica is associated with the starfishes Asterias forbest and A. vulgaris and indeed shows an adapta- CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 101 tion for this habitat by the loss of spination and setation of pereopods 5-7, which would definitely be a hinderance when moving over the highly pedicellate surface of the starfish. For other species associated with echinoderms, see p. 52. Caprella andreae is found attached to floating objects and plants and has even been collected from the fouling on the backs of sea turtles. This species seems to be limited to this type of environment and to my knowledge has not been collected attached to benthic substrates. Phtisica marina was found in many of the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries vessel M/V Theodore N. Gill plankton samples and appears to be a regular member of the Carolinian coastal water plankton from Cape Hatteras to southern Flordia (fig. 56) P. marina lacks a molar on the mandible which may reflect an adaptation to feeding in its planktonic environment. Several other species have occasionally been taken in plankton tows including Hemiaegina minuta and Luconacia incerta; however, these species have a molar on the man- dible. The feeding habits of several west coast species of Caprella and Metacaprella were reviewed by Saunders (1966). She found the bulk of their diet consisted of diatoms, but they also consumed some crustaceans and perhaps also fed on detritus. Since the mouthparts of most of the species of Caprella are very similar, they must have similar feeding habits. As noted on p. 30, I have observed Caprella equilibra feeding on several gammaridean amphipods and polychaetes. Harrison (1939) reviewed the habits of several caprellids. He stated that the caprellids close the antennae down over the prey and then gnathopod 2 grasps the prey, soon paralyzing it with the poison spines. The prey is then shredded by the mouthparts, after which the appendages are cleaned for bits of debris. Caprellids are not infrequent members of the food chains of many bottom feeding fishes and have been found in the guts of the sea bass, Centropristis, the blenny, Blennius, the pollock, Pollachius, the rock cod, Gadus, the dragon net, Callionymus, and the skate, Raja. Aquar- ium observations on several species showed that they were prey for grass shrimps, anemones, and even the small gastropod, Astyris. Caprellids will probably be found to be prey for many other bottom feeding fishes and larger Crustacea. Zoogeography The western Atlantic is rather poor in number of caprellid species compared to similar areas in the Pacific. Utinomi (1947), Mayer (1930), and Arimoto (1934) cite over 60 species which occur in Japa- 102 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 nese waters (approximately 20° of latitude) whereas only 26 species are found in the western North Atlantic (approximately 50° of latitude). This paucity of species in the North Atlantic was observed by Mills (1965) for the gammaridean genus Ampelisca. He stated that inter- tidal species may be few because of winter ice scouring and that perhaps sharp temperature zonation and a wide range of temperatures do not favor the differentiation of stenothermal species. Many of the caprellid species in the temperate zone of the western North Atlantic are almost cosmopolitan in their distribution and appear to be highly elastic eurythermal and euryhaline species. For example, Caprella penantis is found in most parts of the Atlantic and Pacific from the boreal to the tropical zone and in salinities ranging from full sea water to as low as 10 °/oo. Table 3 summarizes the known distribution of the caprellids of the western North Atlantic (figs. 50-55). In general they correspond to samel e Hemiaegina minuta a Hemiproto wigleyr * Mayerella limicola Sees 2 © Mayerella redunca; a 40 ® Previous record O New record pe panslaes 90 Ficure 50.—Distribution records of Hemiaegina minuta, Hemiproto wigleyi, Mayerella limicola, Mayerella redunca, and Metaprotella hummelincki in the western North Atlantic. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 103 the faunal provinces of Johnson (1934) as modified by Hedgpeth (1953) with the exception that a truly boreal fauna is not evident. Cerame- Vivas and Gray (1966) reviewed these zoogeographic provinces and divided the continental shelf fauna of North Carolina into three assemblages, extending the Caribbean province to just north of Cape Hatteras for the outer shelf. These provinces and examples of their caprellid composition are summarized as follows: 1. Arctic province (north of Newfoundland)—Aeginella spinosa and Proaeginina norvegica. 2. Boreal province (Newfoundland to Cape Cod). This province has no endemic caprellids with the possible exception of Mayerella limicola and receives contributions from the Arctic and Transatlantic provinces. Caprella linearis @ Caprella penantis eo x Caprella septentrionalis © Caprella bermudia * ee # Pseudaeginella ant. i © Previous record O New record Figure 51.—Distribution records of Caprella bermudia, Caprella linearis, Caprella penantis, Caprella septentrionalis, and Pseudaeginella antiguae in the western North Atlantic. 104 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 ea Lh wt! z ~ ae Deutella californica x Deutella mayeri © Luconacia incerta ® Previous record O New record 90 Ficure 52.—Distribution records of Deutella californica, Deutella mayeri, and Luconacia incerta in the western North Atlantic. 3. Transatlantic province: (A) Virginian province (Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras). No caprellid is restricted to this province, yet Cape Hatteras does appear to be a southern barrier for the cold-water species Aeginina longicornis and a northern barrier for the warm- water species Phtisica marina. (B) Carolinian province (Cape Hatteras to Cape Kennedy and Tampa Bay to the southern tip of Texas). As in the case of the Virginian province, no caprellid species is re- stricted to this area. If considered together the Virginian and Caro- linian provinces can be characterized by species such as Paracaprella tenuis and Caprella penantis. The transatlantic province seems to be an area of mixing of the Caprellidae with only 1 endemic form. 4. Caribbean province (from Cape Kennedy and Tampa Bay into the tropics, outer shelf to just north of Cape Hatteras, and Bermuda). Many endemic species such as Fallotritella biscaynensis and Hemiproto wigleyt. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 105 * Fullotritella biseaynensis ~~ <4 e Paracaprella pusilla © we AO woe 4 = § Paracaprella tenuis ®G ®@ Previous record O New record Ficure 53.—Distribution records of Fallotritella biscaynensis, Paracaprella pusilla, and Paracaprella tenuis in the western North Atlantic. The distribution of Paracaprella tenuis is interesting since it shows the disjunct distribution pattern which Hedgpeth (1953) cites for Inttorina trrorata and several other organisms. Hedgpeth points out that this disjunct distribution arose during the interglacial periods of the Pleistocene when Florida was submerged and counter currents probably arose across the shoals which ‘made possible the dispersal of northern species into the Gulf of Mexico... ’’. Hedgpeth (1953) states that the conditions are such in the northern Gulf of Mexico to allow mixing of temperate and tropical faunas with a low number of endemic species. This general statement is true for the Caprellidae since no northern Gulf caprellid is endemic and that area receives contributions from both the temperate and tropical areas. 106 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 © Phtisica antillensis ® Phtisica marina e Aeginella spinosa a § Acginina longicornis * Proaeginina nor. _/ @ Previous record O New record 50 Ficure 54.—Distribution records of Aeginella spinosa, Aeginina longicornis, Phtisica antil- lensis, Phtisica marina, and Proaeginina norvegica in the western North Atlantic. Mayer (1903, p. 133) expresses the opinion that Caprellidae are quite rare in the shallow water of the West Indies. Contrary to this opinion, 14 species of caprellids are reported from the Caribbean in this paper. Most of the caprellids of the area are fewer in number of individuals and smaller than those of the northern provinces. This might explain why so few species have previously been reported from the Caribbean. The caprellids are remarkably widespread in their distribution. Many species are almost cosmopolitan, a fact which seems anomalous in view of their limited swimming ability and the absence of a plank- tonic larval stage. Mayer (1882, p. 90; 1890, p. 101; 1903, p. 134) attributes this wide distribution to transportation on ship bottoms and floating objects. Several species are associated with floating objects and plants and some, as Caprella andreae, appear to be limited CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 107 to this type of pelagic environment. Some species, particularly Phtisica marina, are at least transient members of the plankton. In view of these semipelagic habitats, it is not too remarkable that these organisms are spread over very large areas. TABLE 3.—Known distribution of Caprellidae in the western North Atlantic 3/38 n| Qh £ 8i/% | Slesie |ee, g/sz)/22|se|e |e8al - 3/ sO /)/SmH|/ahim |Seel a a B|22|/C2|"2) a2 Mig 2 | = 21'S |85| 25 | 86 B26) = | g Z a oO oO & [0 oD oa) Aeginella spinosa x x Aeginina longicornis x ae He ca C. linearis = x x C. penantis x x x x x x C. scaura x C. septentrionalis x * C. unica x x x Deutella mayert x D. californica x Fallotritella biscaynensis x x x Hemiaegina minuta x x ne x x x Hemiproto wigleyt De os Luconacia incerta x BN x x x x Mayerella limicola rx xe M. redunca x Metaprotella hummelincki x Paracaprella pusilla x x Xx P. tenuis x x x x Phtisica antillensis Xx P. marina x x x x Proaeginina norvegica x x Pseudaeginella antiguae x Relationship Between the Amphipod Suborders Gammaridea and Caprellidea The Caprellidea appear to have arisen from a podocerid type of gammaridean. Generally considered primitive caprellids such as Cercops share many characters in common with the Podoceridae, and a comparison of the figures of the podocerid Neozxendice (fig. 49a) and the caprellid Cercops (fig. 49e) shows the overall general similarity of body forms. 279-475 68- 8 108 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Caprella equilibra Caprella scaura Caprella andreae @ Previous record O New record Figure 55.—Distribution records of Caprella andreae, Caprella danilevskii, Caprella equilibra, Caprella scaura, and Caprella unica in the western North Atlantic. Recently, Kudrjaschov and Vassilenko (1966) described a new family, Caprogammaridea, which they thought formed a link between the Gammaridea and Caprellidea. They placed this family within the Gammaridea due to the following characters: The cephalon is not fused with pereonite 1; small coxal plates are present on all pereonites except 3 and 4; the abdomen consists of 5 free somites and bears 3 pairs of biramous pleopods and 2 pairs of uniramous uropods; and the abdomen bears a small telson. In order to place this important link between the 2 suborders in the Gammaridea, I believe that it would be necessary to alter significantly the definition of the Gammaridea. Stebbing (1906) defines this suborder as Amphipoda which have the: Head not fused with Ist segment of peraeon. Palp of maxilliped 2- to 4-jointed. Peraeon with 7 pairs of legs; 5 or 6 segments of peraeon with branchial vesicles; 4 segments of female with marsupial plates; 1st joint of gnathopods 1, 2 and of CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 109 33) 31° 30° “Gill” Cruise 3 @ Phtisica present |23° © Phtisica absent esa 26° Ficure 56.—Distribution of Phtisica marina in plankton samples taken on cruise 3 of the M/V Theodore N. Gill. peraeopods 1—5 forming or united to well developed side-plates. Pleon consisting usually of 7 free segments, carrying 3 pairs of pleopods and usually 3 pairs, at least 1 pair, of uropods; uropod 1 always with 2 rami. Eyes varying in size and form, 0-4 in number. Hepato-pancreatic tubes 4, rarely 2; rectal glands 2 or 1, sometimes rudimentary. Heart with 3 pairs, rarely 1 pair, of ostia. Nerve-chain with 4 ganglia in pleon-segments 1-4. 110 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ficure 49.—a and b, Neoxenodice caprellinoides, male: a, lateral view; b, maxilla 1; ¢ and d, Caprogammarus gurjanovae, male: c, lateral view; d, maxilla 1; e and f, Cercops holbolli, male holotype: ¢, lateral view; f, maxilla 1 (a after Schellenberg, 1926; c and d after Kudrjaschov and Vassilenko, 1966). CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC Ltt Stebbing (1906) defines the Caprellidae as Amphipoda which have the: Head fused with 1st segment of peraeon. Palp of maxilliped 1- to 4-jointed. Peraeon often with fewer than 7 pairs of legs; 2, rarely 3, segments of peraeon with branchial vesicles; 2 segments in female with marsupial plates; Ist joint of gnathopods and peraeopods wanting. Pleon and its legs rudimentary. Eyes small, 1 pair. Hepato-pancreatic tubes 2, rectal glands none. Heart with 3 pairs of ostia. Posterior ganglia of nerve-chain very small, none situated in pleon. The following facts should be considered before placing this im- portant link in the Gammaridea: 1. No gammaridean bears rudimentary appendages on pereonites 3 and 4; however, in Neoxenodice they are reduced though normally segmented. Caprogammarus (fig. 49c) bears 2 [? 1]-segmented ap- pendages on the pereonites and the reduction of these appendages is in the Caprellidea. 2. Gammarideans have at least 4 pairs of gills with the exception of Neorenodice which has 3 pairs. Caprogammarus bears only 2 pairs as Is common in the Caprellidea. 3. Gammarideans have at least 4 pairs of incubatory plates, al- though the number is not known for Neozenodice. Caprogammarus bears only 2 pairs as is common in the Caprellidea. 4. Most caprellids do bear small coxal plates on pereonites 1 and 2 and 5-7 which, as in Cercops and Aeginella, are as well if not better developed than in Caprogammarus (fig. 3f). 5. Some rather advanced caprellid genera such as Aeginella and Proaeginina have only a partial fusion of the cephalon with pereonite 1 and the suture between them is quite distinct. 6. The abdomen of Cercops consists of 5 somites and bearing in the male what could be considered 2 pairs of very rudimentary pleopods and 2 pairs of uropods. 7. Maxilla 1 of gammarideans always bears an inner lobe (fig. 49b) which is absent in the Caprellidea (fig. 49f). Caprogammarus was de- scribed as bearing an inner lobe (fig. 49d). The only irreconciliable differences between the Caprogammaridae and the Caprellidea are the presence of a telson, biramous pleopods, and an inner lobe on maxilla 1 in Caprogammarus. The telson of Caprogammarus is very small and may represent the dorsal anal lobe which is sometimes quite large in the Caprellidea. The inner lobe in the figures of maxilla 1 of Caprogammarus seems to be of quite unusual shape and is even larger than that of Neorenodice. It might be that the figures are not of an actual lobe but of some distortion caused during dissection. Regrettably, I have not been able to obtain specimens of Caprogam- marus so I must rely on Kudrjaschov and Vassilenko’s description and figures. The biramous pleopods and the inner lobe of maxilla 1 112 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 are not as important in my opinion as the other characters mentioned above, which Caprogammarus shares with the Caprellidea. For these reasons, I am placing Caprogammarus in the family Caprellidae. It might be argued that since the genera Neozenodice— Caprogammarus—Cercops form a fairly even gradation between the Gammaridea and the Caprellidea that merging of the suborders would be justified. To do this, however, one would have to take into consideration splitting the family Caprellidae into several families to place it on the same level as gammaridean families. This probably could be done be restricting the family Caprellidae to those forms which have quite reduced abdomens and by using the family Ca- progammaridae for those transitional forms such as Caprogammarus and Cercops. In my opinion the Caprellidae are too poorly known to make such a revision at this time and consideration should be given to details of the mouthparts of members of all the genera involved prior to a reorganization of familial taxa. Literature Cited ABILDGAARD, P. C. 1788. In O. F. Miiller, Zoologia Danica, seu animalim Daniae et Norvegiae rariorum ac minus 1otorum descriptiones et historia. Havniae, vol. 2, pp. 1-56, pls. 41-80 [Caprellidae, pp. 20-22, pl. 56]. 1789. In op. cit., vol. 3, pp. 1-71, pls. 81-120 [Caprellidae, pp. 33-34, 58, pl. 101, figs. 1-2, pl. 114, figs. 11-12]. ALLEE, W. C. 1922. Studies in marine ecology: II. An annotated catalog of the distri- bution of common invertebrates of the Woods Hole littoral. Marine Biol. Lab. Woods Hole and Univ. Chicago [manuscript], 101 pp. [Caprellidae, pp. 57, 58]. 1923. Studies in marine ecology: III. Some physical factors related to the distribution of littoral invertebrates. Biol. Bull., vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 205-253 [Caprellidae, p. 213]. ALLEN, E. J., and Topp, R. A. 1900. The fauna of the Salcombe Estuary. Journ. Marine Biol. Assoc. United Kingdom, new ser., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 151-217 [Caprellidae, pp. 166, 174, 178, 181, 203]. ArtmorTo, I. 1930. Studies on the Caprellidae of Tateyama II [in Japanese]. Journ. Tokyo Nat. Hist. Soc., vol. 28, no. 39, pp. 45-56, pl. 2. 1931. Studies on the Caprellidae from Tateyama III [in Japanese]. Op. cit., vol. 29, no. 41, pp. 10-19, figs. 7-9, pl. 3. 1934. Caprellids collected by the surveying ship of the Imperial Fisheries Experimental Station of the Department of Agriculture Soyo-maru [in Japanese]. Debutsugaxu Zasshi [Zool. Soc. Japan], vol. 46, no. 553, pp. 494-509, 1 fig., pls. 1-3. BARNARD, K. H. 1916. Contributions to the crustacean fauna of South Africa. No. 5, The Amphipoda. Ann. South African Mus., vol. 15, pt. 3, pp. 105-302, pls. 26-28 [Caprellidae, pp. 279-285, pl. 28]. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 113 1925. Contributions to the crustacean fauna of South Africa. No. 8, Further additions to the list of Amphipoda. Op. cit., vol. 20, pt. 5, pp. 319-380, pl. 34 [Caprellidae, pp. 371-373]. 1930. Crustacea. Part XI. Amphipoda. British Antarctic (Terra Nova) Exped., Nat. Hist. Rep., zool., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 307-354, 63 figs. [Caprellidae, pp. 440-443, figs. 62-63]. 1932. Amphipoda. Discovery Rep., vol. 5, 326 pp., 174 figs., 1 pl. [Caprellidae, pp. 299-306]. 1937. Amphipoda. John Murray Exped. (Sci. Rep.), vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 131-201, 21 figs. [Caprellidae, pp. 134, 197-198]. 1955. Additions to the fauna-list of South African Crustacea and Pycnogon- ida. Ann. South African Mus., vol. 43, pt. 1, 107 pp., 53 figs. [Caprellidae, p. 99]. 1965, Isopoda and Amphipoda collected by the Gough Island Scientific Survey. Op. cit., vol. 48, pt. 9, pp. 195-210, 3 figs. [Caprellidae, p. 209]. Barrois, T. 1888. Catalogue, des crustacés marins recueillis aux Acores durant les mois d’Acofit et Septembre 1887. Lille. 110 pp., 4 pls. [Caprellidae, pp. 55-59, 76-77]. Bates, C. SPENCE 1856. On the British Edriophthalma. Part 1. The Amphipoda. Rep. 25th Meeting British Assoc. Adv. Sci. (Glasgow), pp. 18-62, pls. 12-22 [Caprellidae, scattered through paper and p. 60, pl. 18, figs, 5-8, pl. 21, figs. 4, 8, 11]. 1857. A synopsis of the British edriophthalmous Crustacea. Part I. Amphip- oda. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, vol. 19, pp. 135-152, 2 figs. [Caprellidae, pp. 151-152]. 1862. Catalogue of the specimens of amphipodous Crustacea in the collection of the British Museum. London, pp. iv+399, 58 pls. [Caprellidae, pp. 349-365, 382. pls. 54-57]. 1878. Crustacea. (Revised and added to by C. Spence Bate, F.R.S.) In J. Couch, The Cornish Fauna. Journ. Roy. Inst. Cornwall, no. 19, pp. 451-522 [Caprellidae, pp. 508-510). 1887. Crustacea, pp. 170-178. In W. Heape, Preliminary report upon the fauna and flora of Plymouth Sound. Journ. Marine Biol. Assoc. United Kingdom, no. 1, pp. 153-193 [Caprellidae, p. 175]. Bate, C. SpencsE, and Wrestwoop, J. O. 1868. A history of British sessile-eyed Crustacea. London, vol. 2, pp. lvi+ 536 [Caprellidae, pp. 35-76]. Beaumont, W. I. 1900. The faunaand flora of Valencia Harbour on the west coast of Ireland. Part II. The benthos (dredging and shore-collecting). Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. (Dublin), ser. 3, vol. 5, pp. 754-798 [Caprellidae, p. 795]. Bztt, T. 1855. Account of the Crustacea, vol. 2, pp. 400-411, pls. 34-35. In The last of the Arctic voyages; being a narrative of the expedition in H.M.S. Assistance, under the command of Captain Sir Edward Belcher, C.B., in search of Sir John Franklin, during the years 1852-53-54. London [Caprellidae, pp. 407-408, pl. 35). 4 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Bre.tuevupy, M. 1958. Croissance relative des segments et des appendices chez l’Amphipoda Caprella aequilibra (Say). Compt. Rendus Soc. Biol., Paris, vol. 152, no. 2, pp. 355-356. BENEDEN, P. J. vAN 1859. La tortue franche (Chelonia midas) dans la mer du Nord, ses com- mensaux et ses parasites. Bull. Acad. Roy. Sci. Belgique, ser. 2, vol. 6, pp. 71-87, 2 pls. [Caprellidae, pp. 78-81, pl. 1, figs. 9-11]. 1861. Recherches sur la faune littorale de Belgique. Crustacés. Mem. Acad. Roy. Belgique, vol. 33, 180 pp., 31 pls. [Caprellidae, pp. 95-99, 145-146, pls. 16-17]. BERTRAND, H. 1941. Les crustacés malacostracés de la région Dinardaise. Bull. Lab. Maritime Dinard, vol. 23, pp. 3-23, 1 fig. [Caprellidae, pp. 7, 9, 12, 13;:14, 15, 16,.17, 18,°20-23, fig. 1]. BsdrcxK, W. 1915. Biologisk-faunistiska undersékningar av Oresund. II. Crustacea Malacostraca och Pantopoda. Lunds Univ. Aarsskr., sect. 2, vol. 11, no. 7, 98 pp., 1 map [Caprellidae, pp. 35-36] [Also Fysiog. Saéllsk. Handl., new ser., vol. 26, no. 7]. 1916. Bidrag till kinnedomen om Kattegatts fauna. Ark. Zool. Utgifvet Svenska Vetenskapsakad, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 9-14, 1 map [Caprel- lidae, p. 9]. Buanc, H. 1884. Die Amphipoden der Kieler Bucht nebst einer histologischen Darstel- lung der “Calceoli.”” Nova Acta Leopold-Carol. Deutschen Akad. Naturf., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 39-104, pls. 6-10 [Caprellidae, pp. 50-51, 85-91, pl. 10). Boeck, A. 1861. Bemaerkninger angaaende de ved de norske Kyster forekommende Amphipoder. Forhandl. Skaninaviske Naturf., Copenhagen, vol. 8, pp. 631-677 [Caprellidae, pp. 669-677]. 187la. Crustacea Amphipoda borealia et arctica. Forhandl. Vidensk.- Selskabet Christiania, pp. 83-280 (1-200), I-VIII [Caprellidae, pp. 267-278 (187-—200)]. 1871b. Bidrag til Californiens Amphipodefauna. Op. cit., pp. 32-51, 1 pl. [Caprellidae, pp. 35-39, 48-49, pl. 1]. 1873-76. De skandinaviske og artiske Amphipoder. Christiania, pp. iv-711, 32 pls. [Caprellidae, pp. 668-703, pl. 32]. BONNIER, J. 1887. Catalogue des crustacés malacostracés recueillis dans la baie de Concarneau. Bull. Sci. Dept. Nord, no. 10, pp. 199-262, 296-356, 361-422 [Caprellidae, pp. 349-356]. Borcka, T. 1931. Nouvelles contributions 4 l’étude de la faune benthonique dans la Mer Noire, prés du littoral Roumain, Ann. Sci. Univ. Jassy, vol. 16, nos. 3-4, pp. 655-750 [Caprellidae, pp. 669, 677, 694, 702]. 1934. Liste de animaux marins récoltés jusqu’4 présent dans la region de la Station d’Agigéa (Mer Noire). Op. cit., vol. 19, pp. 402-407 [Caprellidae, p. 404]. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC EL Bosc, L. A. G. 1801-02. Histoire naturelle des crustacés, contenant leur description et leurs mocurs; avec figures dessinées d’aprés nature. Paris, vol. 2, 296 pp., pls. 9-18 [Caprellidae, pp. 153-156]. 1830. Ibid, ed. 2, vol. 2, 306 pp., pls. 10-18 [Caprellidae, pp. 123-126, pl. 15]. BovUcHARD-CANTEREAUR, 1833. Catalogue des crustacés observés jusqu’dé ce jour a l’etat vivant dans la Boulonnais. Boulogne, 24 pp. [Caprellidae, p. 18]. BousFIELD, E. L. 1956a. Malacostracan crustaceans from the shores of western Nova Scotia. Proc. Nova Scotian Inst. Sci., vol. 24, pt. 1, pp. 25-38, 3 figs., 3 tabs. [Caprellidae, p. 32]. 1956b. Studies on the shore Crustacea collected in eastern Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, 1954. Bull. Nat. Mus. Canada, no. 142, pp. 127- 152, 1 fig. [Caprellidae, pp. 144-145]. 1958. Littoral marine arthropods and mollusks collected in western Nova Scotia, 1956. Proc. Nova Scotian Inst. Sci., vol. 24, pt. 3, pp. 303-325, 1 fig. [Caprellidae, pp. 315, 321, 322]. 1962. Studies on littoral marine arthropods from the Bay of Fundy region. Bull. Nat. Mus. Canada, no. 183, pp. 42-62, 4 figs. [Caprellidae, p. 53]. BousFIELpD, E. L., and Lum, A. H. 1958. The fauna of Minas Basin and Minas Channel. Op. cit., no. 166, 30 pp. [Caprellidae, p. 18]. Brapy, G.S., and Rospgertson, D. 1869. Notes of a week’s dredging in the west of Ireland. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 4, vol. 3, pp. 353-374, pls. 18-22 [Caprellidae, pp. 360-361]. Briaes, E. A. 1914. Notes on Tasmanian Caprellidae. Pap. Proc. Roy. Soc. Tasmania, pp. 75-80. BriiaGcEN, E. von DER 1907. Zoologische Ergebnisse der russischen expeditionen nach Spitzbergen. Amphipoda. Ann. Mus. Zool. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Pétersbourg, vol. 11, pp. 214-245, 9 figs., 1 map [Caprellidae, pp. 237-238]. 1909. Beitrige zur Kenntnis der Amphipoden-Fauna der russischen Arctis. Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Pétersbourg, ser. 8, vol. 18, no. 16, 56 pp., 4 figs., 3 pls. [Caprellidae, pp. 42-43]. BRuNEL, P. 1961. Liste taxonomique des invertébrés marins des Parages de la Gaspésie identifiés au 3 aofit 1959. Cahiers Inform. Sta. Biol. Marine Grande-Riviére, no. 7, 9 pp. [Caprellidae, p. 7]. BucHuo.z, R. 1874. Crustaceen. In 2nd Deutschen Nordpolarfahrt Wiss. Ergebn., vol. 2, pp. 262-399, 15 pls. [Caprellidae, pp. 270, 388]. CaLMAN, W. L. 1927. Guide to the Crustacea exhibited in the Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History). British Mus., London, 81 pp., 53 figs. [Caprellidae, p. 43, fig. 27]. Ciriusu, A. 1941. Note sur quelques Caprellides des eaux frangaise et monégasques. Bull. Inst. Océanogr., no. 803, 15 pp., 4 figs. 116 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 278 Ci riust, S. 1956. Introducere la monografia amfipodelor marii Negre (Litoralul rominesc). Analele Stiintifice Univ. ‘Al. I. Cuza’”’ Iasi, new ser., sect., 2, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 127-183, 14 pls. [Caprellidae, pp. 131, 132, 133, 134]. CxXrivusv, S., and CXrAusu, A. 1942. Amphipodes provenent des dragages effectués dans eaux roumaines de la Mer Noire (28 Aodt-1 Sept. 1935). Ann. Sci. Nat. Univ. Jassy, vol. 28, pp. 66-83, 8 figs., 2 tabs. [Caprellidae, pp. 79-83, fig. 8]. Carus, J. V. 1885. Coelenterata, Echinodermata, Vermes, Arthropoda. vol. 1, xi + 525 pp. In Prodromus faune mediterraneae sive descriptio ani- malium maris Mediterranei incolarum quam comparata silva rerum quatenus innotuit adiectis locis et nominibus vargaribus eorunque auctoribus in commodum zoologorum. Stuttgart [Caprel- lidae, pp. 887-390). CrraME-Vivas, M. J., and Gray, I. E. 1966. The distributional pattern of benthic invertebrates of the Continental Shelf off North Carolina. Ecol., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 260-270, 6 figs. [Caprellidae, p. 263]. CHEVREUX, E. 1887a. Catalogue des crustacés amphipodes marins du sud-ouest de la Bretagne, suivi d’un apercu de la distribution geégraphique des amphipodes sur les cétes de France. Bull. Soc. Zool. France, vol. 12, pp. 288-340, pl. 5 [Caprellidae, pp. 317-319, 335]. 1887b. Crustacés amphipodes nouveaux dragtes par l Hirondelle pendant sa campagne de 1886. Ibid., pp. 566-580 [Caprellidae, pp. 578, 579]. 1888. Troisieme campagne de I’Hirondelle, 1887. Sur quelques crustacés amphipodes du littoral des Agores. Op. cit., vol. 13, pp. 31-35 [Caprellidae: pp. 33, 34). 1898. Révision des amphipodes de la céte océanique de France. Compt. Rendu 27th Session Assoc. Francaise Avance. Sci., pt. 2, Notes Mem., pp. 474-484 [Caprellidae: pp. 483-484]. 1900. Amphipodes provenant des campagnes de I’ Hirondelle (1885-1888). Rés. Capagnes Sci. Hirondelle, no. 16, pp. iv + 195, 18 pls. [Caprellidae, pp. 118-121]. 1901 (1902). Amphipodes recueillis par la Melita sur les cétes occidentale et méridionale de Corse. Compt. Rendu 30th Session Assoc. Frangaise Avance. Sci., pp. 692-699, pl. 5 [Caprellidae: p. 696]. CHEvREUX, FE. and Bouvier, E. L. 1893. Les amphipodes de Saint-Vaast-La-Hougue. Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool., ser. 7, zool., vol. 15, pp. 109-144, pl. 2 [Caprellidae, pp. 142-144]. CHEvREUX, E., and pE GUERNE, J. 1893. Crustacés et Cirrhipédes commensaux des tortues marines de la Méditerranée. Compt. Rendu 21st Session Assoc. Francaise Avance. Sci., 3 pp. [Caprellidae, pp. 2-3]. CHEVREUX, E., and Faas, L. 1925. Amphipodes, 9. Faune de France. Paris, 488 pp., 438 figs. [Caprel- lidae, pp. 433-461, figs. 422-437]. CAPRELLIDAE OF WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC 117 CHICHKOFF, G. 1912. Contribution a l’étude de la faune de la Mer Noire. Animaux récoltés sur les cOtes Bulgares. Arch. Zool. Exp., ser. 5, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. xxix-xxxix [Caprellidae: p. xxxv]. CHILTON, C. 1910 (1911). The Crustacea of the Kermadec Islands. Trans. New Zealand Inst., vol. 48, pp. 544-573 [Caprellidae, pp. 546, 567]. 1921. A small collection of Amphipoda from Juan Fernandez. Jn Skotts- berg, C., the natural history of Juan Fernandez and Easter Island, vol. 3, no. 14, pp. 81-92, 4 figs. [Caprellidae, pp. 90-91, fig. 4). CHUMLEY, J. i918. The fuana of the Clyde Sea area, being an attempt to record the zoological results obtained by the late Sir John Murray and his assistants on board the S.Y. Medusa during the years 1884 to 1892. Glasgow, pp. vi + 200, 1 map [Caprellidae, pp. 34, 52, 85, 99, 165]. Cocks, W. P. 1849. Contributions to the fauna of Falmouth. 17th Ann. Rep. Roy. Cornwall Polytech. Soc., pp. 38-102 [Caprellidae, p. 83]. Co.tuin, J. 1884. Om Limfjordens tidligere og nuvaerende Marine Fauna, med saerligt hensyn til Bl¢dddynfaunaen. Copenhagen, 168 pp., 1 pl. [Caprellidae, Dagelle Costa, S. 1960a. Premier apergu sur la repartition des caprelles dans la region de Villefranche sur Mer. Trav. Sta. Zool. Villefranche-sur-Mer, fasc. 19, no. 19, pp. 99-101. 1960b. Note préliminaire sur l’ethologie alimentaire de deux caprellides de la Rade de Villefranche-sur-Mer. Op. cit., fasc. 19, no. 20, pp. 103-105. 1961. Capagne de la Calypso en mer d’Alboran et dans la baie Ibéro- Marocaine (1958). 3. Amphipodes. Ann. Inst. Oceanogr., new ser., vol. 39, pp. 269-275 [Caprellidae, p. 271). Covucg, R. Q. 1864. On some of the rarer forms of Cornish Crustacea. Nat. Hist. Trans. Antiquarian Soc. Penzance, vol. 2, pp. 95-99 [Caprellidae, pp. 95-99]. Cow .gs, R. P. 1930.