Deep-sea Amphipoda of the

Genus Lepechinella

(Crustacea)

Ms %

J LAURENS BARNARD

SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY • NUMBER 133
SERIAL PUBLICATIONS OF TH E SMITHSONIA N INSTITUTION

The emphasis upon publications as a means of diffusing knowledge was expressed

by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry articulated a program that included the following statement:

"It is*proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries

in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge."

This keynote of basic research has been adhered to over the years in the issuance

of thousands of titles in serial publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with

the following active series:

Smithsonian Annals of Flight

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology

Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany

Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences

Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology

In these series, the Institution publishes original articles and monographs dealing

with the research and collections of its several museums and offices and of professional

colleagues at other institutions of learning. These papers report newly acquired facts,

synoptic interpretations of data, or original theory in specialized fields. These publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, laboratories, and other interested

institutions and specialists throughout the world. Individual copies may be obtained

from the Smithsonian Institution Press as long as stocks are available.

S. DILLON RIPLEY

Secretary

Smithsonian Institution
SMITHSONIA N CONTRIBUTION S T O ZOOLOG Y • NUMBE R 13 3

Deep-sea Amphipoda of the

Genus Lepechinella

(Crustacea)

J. Laurens Barnard

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS

City of Washington

1973
ABSTRACT

Barnard, J. Laurens. Deep-sea Amphipoda of the Genus Lepechinella (Crustacea). Smithsonian'Contributions to Zoology, number 133, 31 pages, 12 figures,

1973.—Lepechinella, now a member of Dexamindae, is perhaps the most diverse

gammaridean genus confined to the deep sea. All 23 species, including 9 new

species, are reviewed. Atylus aberrantis J. L. Barnard is transferred to Lepechinella. Except for inner lobes on the lower lip of the latter genus, Atylus and

Lepechinella scarcely differ from each other because of several species with

intergrading characters. Lepechinella and Paralepechinella are the only dexaminid genera in the deep sea; Atylus, the sublittoral genus, contains the logical

ancestors to Lepechinella. Most species of Lepechinella are probably ooze

dwellers or are weakly epibenthic (demersal); many have bizarre ornaments and

a few have the rare attribute of spinose bodies.

The diversity of Lepechinella is undoubtedly much higher than now understood but collections are sparse and intact specimens difficult to obtain because

of their fragility. They offer an excellent focus for studies of speciation in the

deep sea because of a higher number of measurable taxonomic characteristics.

Official publication date is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded

in the Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Year.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Barnard, J. Laurens, 1928-

Deep-sea Amphipoda of the genus Lepechinella (Crustacea).

(Smithsonian contributions to zoology, no. 133)

Bibliography: p.

1. Lepechinella. I. Title. II. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian contributions to

zoology, no. 133.

QL1.S54 no. 133 [QL444.A5] 591'.08s [595'.371] 72-8040

For ule by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 70 cents (paper cover)
Contents

Page

Introduction 1

Evolution of Lepechinella 1

Speciation in Lepechinella 3

Methods of Presentation 4

Family Dexaminidae 5

Subfamily Dexamininae 5

Lepechinella Stebbing 5

Key i to Species of Lepechinella 5

Key II to Species of Lepechinella 6

Key in to Species of Lepechinella 7

Lepechinella aberrantis (J. L. Barnard) 7

Lepechinella arctica Schellenberg 10

Lepechinella auca, new species 10

Lepechinella bierii J. L. Barnard 12

Lepechinella cachi, new species 12

Lepechinella cetrata K. H. Barnard 14

Lepechinella chrysotheras Stebbing 14

Lepechinella cura, new species 14

Lepechinella curvispinosa Pirlot 16

Lepechinella drygalskii Schellenberg 16

Lepechinella echinata (Chevreux) 16

Lepechinella enpraxiella, new species 17

Lepechinella huaco, new species 17

Lepechinella manco, new species 19

Lepechinella monocuspidata J. L. Barnard 19

Lepechinella occlo, new species 21

Lepechinella pangola J. L. Barnard 21

Lepechinella raua, new species 21

Lepechinella sucia J. L. Barnard 25

Lepechinella turpis J. L. Barnard, new status 25

Lepechinella uchu, new species .25

Lepechinella ultraabyssalis Birstein and Vinogradova 26

Lepechinella wolffi Dahl . 26

Literature Cited 29

Appendix: Sample Data 29

Index 31

Deep-sea Amphipoda of the

Genus Lepechinella

(Crustacea)

J. Laurens Barnard

Introduction

Lepechinella Stebbing (1908) and Paralepechinella Pirlot (1933) formerly constituted the Lepechinellidae, the only gammaridean family confined

to the deep sea. Recently J. L. Barnard (1970)

transferred these genera to the Dexaminidae, thus

synonymizing the junior Lepechinellidae and

abolishing its distinction. This move was not

unprecedented; it had been suggested by K. H.

Barnard (1925), although Dahl (1959) had advanced

arguments to distinguish Lepechinella from the

Atylidae (= Dexaminidae). The presence of inner

lobes on the lower lip provided the main distinction for Lepechinella. Now that Atylidae are

also synonymous with the Dexaminidae (J. L.

Barnard, 1970) the presence of inner lobes on the

lower lip is considered insignificant because dexaminids in general vary in this condition.

This paper presents the diverse morphology of

Lepechinella by reviewing all known species and by

describing new species found in collections made

by the research vessels Vema and Eltanin and by

various expeditions of the New Zealand Oceanographic Institution. The species now total 23.

Specimens of Lepechinella are fragile and easily

broken by the shipboard removal of biota from

deep sea sediments. Only the best materials available have been analyzed while numerous fragments

/. Laurens Barnard, Department of Invertebrate Zoology,

National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. 20560.

and broken bodies have been stored for future

studies. Perusal of those fragments suggests numerous taxa in this group remain to be described

but the prospects of obtaining more good deep-sea

samples in the near future seem bleak in the present

decline of marine expeditions aimed at these discoveries. Hence, this paper is published as a contemporary synthesis and hopefully a stimulus to

future explorers, rather than as a terminal definition of the genus in alpha taxonomy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.—This study was supported

by NSF grant GB-3285. I am indebted to Dr. D. E.

Hurley of New Zealand Oceanographic Institute

in whose laboratories much of the study was conducted. The Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting

Center under Dr. I. E. Wallen kindly supplied the

Eltanin specimens and the American Museum of

Natural History supplied the specimens sorted

from Vema expeditions. I thank Dr. R. J. Menzies

who aboard Eltanin and Vema supervised much of

the careful sediment processing that saved so many

specimens from irremedial damage. Eltanin. specimens are deposited in the Smithsonian collections

(USNM).

Evolution of Lepechinella

Virtually no external distinctions (unhidden

from lateral aspect) occur between certain species

of Atylus and several of the primitive species of

Lepechinella. The hierarchy of specialization outlined by J. L. Barnard (1970) in the family

1
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

Dexaminidae placed Atylns at the primitive end

of the family and suggested that the 12 other

genera of the family could logically be derived

from Atylus in 2 or more sequences. This is

undoubtedly an oversimplification as the precursors

of Atylus can only be hypothesized and several

dexaminids may actually have descended from

Y>roto-Atylus species. Except for the presence of

teeth, cusps, and spines on the body, and inner

lobes on the lower lip, several species of Atylus

represent the primitive grade of structure in Dexaminidae, because these species bear many characteristics modified in descendent genera by loss or

simplification of structure. The unmodified species

bear a mandibular palp, 2-articulate palp of

maxilla 1, strong mandibular lobes on the lower

lip, well-developed incisors and spines on the

mandible, a 4-articulate palp on the maxilliped,

fully cleft telson, short and poorly armed pereopods,

basic uropods, and only a partially pygidized urosome. Atylus and dexaminids in general differ

from the basic gammaridean, as represented by

several genera in Gammaridae, only by the reduction of the accessory flagellum and the fusion of

urosomites 2-3. The sexual differences in gnathopods are also lost to a great extent and male

gnathopod 2 reduced in size, but this recurrent

feature is present in various genera of the

Gammaridea.

Atylus, Lepechinella, and Paralepechinella are

the only dexaminids retaining a mandibular palp,

and even a few species of Atylus have lost this

appendage. The main accretions in the evolution

of other dexaminid genera involve the development of teeth and cusps on body segments or the

elongation and diversification of pereopods 3-5. In

subsequent evolutionary events these characteristics are then lost again, as may be illustrated in

the probable descent of Syndexamine from Paradexamine. Tooth development is seen in species

of Atylus, some of which may have more teeth than

several species of Lepechinella. The vertically

extended ocular lobe of Atylus and Lepechinella

is a marked character of relationship. The ocular

lobe is elongate dorsoventrally and in certain

species of Atylus and perhaps all species of Lepechinella is produced forward in two points often

extended as long cusps. The ultimate member of

Lepechinella has very long processes on the ocular

lobe and body segments and has highly elongate

antennae, pereopods, and accessory flagella; the

latter remains essentially 1-articulate. Presumably

the elongation of appendages is functionally analogous to conditions known in Melphidippidae

where the body hangs upside down in its cradle

of legs while the organism rests on a bottom of

ooze (Enequist, 1950). The legs are spread out in

the fashion of a spider to increase the support on

the soft substrate by an increase in the surface

presented. The extreme lepechinellid is thus well

adapted to a demersal or epibenthic life in the deep

sea but L. aberrantis, with short appendages, must

be presumed to live on hard substrate or have

other adaptations against sinking in oozes.

The occurence of inner lobes on the lower lip of

Lepechinella has no known intermediate connection to Atylus, although the problem has not been

thoroughly explored in Atylus. The occurrence of

these lobes in at least five other dexaminid genera

is an ultimate morphological reason to synonymize

the Lepechinellidae with the Atylidae; the latter

monotypic family is so clearly variable in its characters of mandibular palp, coxal acumination, body

cuspidation, and degree of pygidization that it

cannot remain distinct from Dexaminidae. Gnathopods, telson, maxillipeds, and uropod 3 also conform among the taxa now synonymized.

Because J. L. Barnard's Atylus aberrantis is now

recognized as a Lepechinella, no Atylus is known

to occur in the deep sea and no Lepechinella

occurs in the sublittoral, though Lepechinella

ascends to depths under 1000 m in high latitudes.

Lepechinella may therefore be both cold-adapted,

substrate-adapted, and because the species lack

eyes, dark-adapted. Atylus is light-adapted because

it bears eyes, is eurythermic because it occurs in

both high and low latitudes, but in contrast to

Lepechinella, must also be adapted to coarse sediments or nestling niches of the shallow sea. The

eurytopicity of Atylus suggests, however, that the

main advance towards dispersal in the deep sea

involves the loss of eyes and development of fleshy

lobes on the lower lip rather than in any implied

thermal adaptations or development of slender

appendages. Loss of eyes is apparently no revolutionary event in certain gammarideans, as many

genera have oculate and anoculate species, and a

few species are believed to have both oculate and

anoculate populations.
NUMBER 1S3

No correlation between food-gathering capabilities and the presence of inner lobes on the lower

lip can be ascertained because inner lobes occur

in a diversity of dexaminids, some of which are

benthic nestlers. One, Polycheria osborni, however,

burrows into compound ascidians for shelter and

then niters diatoms from water pumped into its

domicile by its own pleopods (Skogsberg and Vansell, 1928). Perhaps the inner lobes increase the

sucking capability of the mouthfield by added

closure of buccal channels; this might facilitate the

processing of extremely fine particles of deep-sea

sediments.

Long teeth and so-called ornamental cusps have

been both a pu/zle and a highly useful taxonomic

tool to amphipod systematists. Very little functional morphology has been explored in amphipods,

but undoubtedly many of these features have uses,

such as, nonskid devices, aids to ecdysis, storage of

waste products, repositories for glands, predator

protection, and balance. No explanation for the

variety of ornaments and teeth in Lepechinella can

be offered. Spinosity of the body surface seen in

several species of the genus is rare in marine amphipods; these dense clusters of articulate spines are

known mainly in the genus Uschakoviella Gurjanova of the family Paramphithoidae.

CONCLUSIONS.—One may hypothesize that by the

loss of eyes and the development of inner lobes on

the lower lip, one or more species of Atylus or

pvoio-Atylus found a habitat open in the deep sea,

not available, before or since, to dexaminids. The

adaptability of Lepechinella to life on oozes is

increased by the extension of appendages, the

increase in number or size of body processes, and

the proliferation of articulate spines on the body

surfaces. These highly variable characteristics

obviously altered during the processes of speciation,

but how allopatric isolation took place in abyssal

depths in unknown. To date Lepechinella has

been collected in only a few regions of the deep

sea and virtually nothing is known of intraspecific

variability, clines, subspeciation, or the extent of

distribution of any one species.

Speciation in Lepechinella

Many of the specific differences now attributed

to species of Lepechinella are extensively quantitative. The low level of knowledge and exploration

in this genus presents the taxonomist with the

quandary of whether or not morphological intergradation occurs among several of the species now

described. The sparsity of qualitative characters

in the genus suggests that the future taxonomic

elaboration of Lepechinella will be fraught with

difficulties; however, the high diversity of attributes (few of which presently are good taxonomic

characters) should make Lepechinella a model

genus for study of speciation in the deep sea.

Characters having qualitative value as now

known in Lepechinella are as follows: (1) simple

or bifid spines of body segments; (2) presence or

absence of lateral spines on anterior body segments;

(3) presence or absence of dorsal teeth and accessory teeth on various body segments; (4) presence

or absence of cusps on certain coxae; (5) hooking

of coxal cusps; (6) presence or absence of cleft on

coxa 1 (also subject to variation in degree); (7)

presence or absence and lineal organization of facial

setae on epimera; (8) number of apical setae and

aesthetascs on accessory flagellum (not yet studied

in the genus); (9) presence or absence of subapical

setae on article 3 of mandibular palp (also not

yet studied).

Characters involving degree of length ratios,

proportions, patterns, and shapes are as follows:

rostrum; cephalic teeth; length of accessory flagellum; size of dorsal teeth and nodules; degree of

body setation; articles of mandibular palp; depth

of clefting and length of cusps on coxae; shape of

coxae; length of pereopods and their dactyls;

degree of setation on pereopods (often unclear as

many setae lost by sandblasting effects of sample

processing); posterior bulge and teeth of epimera;

setal patterns on epimera; ramal lengths of uropods; overall reduction of uropod 2 compared with

uropod 1; size of article 2 on outer ramus of uropod

3 (poorly studied, often missing); depth of cleft

on telson, degree of gape; number, size, and placement of telsonic spines.

The group of species containing L. arctica, L.

turpis, L. eupraxiella, and L. chrysotheras is not

well known but the species appear very closely

related to each other. Lepechinella eupraxiella,

formerly identified by Gurjanova (not Schellenberg) as L. arctica, is described as a new species,

despite the close relationship among the several

species, because L. eupraxiella and L. arctica

Schellenberg are grossly sympatric yet differ in a
4 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

PHYLETIC KEY TO THE SPECIES OF Lepechinella

The species of Lepechinella can be loosely arranged in a progression commencing with the stage resembling Atylus:

1. Dorsal teeth present only on pereonite 7 to pleonite 4; pereopods 3-5 short; rostrum fully lanceolate; epimera 2-3 with

lateral ridge L. aberrantis (TA)

2a. At least pereonites 1-4 lacking teeth, or pereonite 1 with one small tooth; pereopods 3-5 hereafter elongate; rostrum

hereafter not complttely lanceolate; epimera hereafter poorly ridged; coxa 1 not bifid

L. raua (s), L. cachi (RE), L. ultraabyssalis, L. cetrata (T) , L. huaco (E)

2b. Coxa 1 bifid L. auca (RTA)

3. Pereonites 1-4 with small teeth; pereonite 1 with two teeth; coxa 1 not or weakly bifid L. pangola, L. occlo (E)

4a. Pereonites 1-4 with large teeth but pereonite 1 with only one tooth; coxa 1 not bifid L. monocuspidata (UT)

4b. Coxa 1 bifid L. uchu (SURT)

5. Pereonites 1-5 with large teeth, pereonite 1 with two teeth; coxa 1 not bifid

L. cura (s), L. lechinata (s), L. drygalskii, L. bierii, L. sucia (E) , /.. wolffi (RS) , L. curvispinosa (DSR)

6. Pereonites 1-4 with large teeth, pereonite 1 with two teeth; coxa 1 bifid

L. manco (AES) , /-. chrysotheras, L. arctica (AE) , L. turpis (E) , L. eupraxiella

SYMBOLS: A —accessory Hagellum not greatly elongate; D—dorsal teeth of pleon enlarged; Erzlateral row of setae on at

least one epimeron; R=rostrum weak; s=:body spination or setation extensive; T—telson poorly lepechinellid, gape weak;

u=one or more uropods heavily modified.

degree sufficient to suggest they are not phenotypes

of a single species. In its juvenile stages, Lepechinella turpis, herein raised to full specific rank, is

very similar to L. arctica. The minor differences

among these species suggest they may have no

specific value. Because of the early stage of exploration in this genus, however, the referral of these

morphs to distinct species is justified until more

can be learned of morphological variations and the

geography of speciation in Lepechinella.

Methods of Presentation

Diagnoses are based on characteristics well

described throughout the genus; many characters

are probably overlooked because fine details have

not been reported on many species. For example

the tooth on pleonites 5-6 (coalesced) is ignored

because its presence or absence may be especially

dependent on damage. The pair of lateral pocket

setules on each lobe of the telson is ignored in

describing the armament of the telson. The rami

of uropods 1—2 are called ordinary if both reach

equally. The first cephalic tooth is the dorsalmost

next to the rostrum on each side of the head.

Diagnostic values stated in percentages, such as

the length of the rostrum, are not absolute but

simply approximate.

The following terms are briefly defined: (1)

"active margins" of pereopods refer to the edges of

article 6 pointing in the same direction as the

dactyls; (2) "locking" refers to the spines on

pereopods at the bases of dactyls; (3) "pygidized"

and "pygidization" refer to any adaptations lending

strength or rigidization to the urosome and its

appendages, such as fusion of segments; (4) "softly"

is used as a term intermediate between sharply

and bluntly; (5) a "lepechinellid telson" (T) is

best seen in Figures 3,4,5,6,7, and 10; the base of the

telsonic lobes is solid, the lobes extended rigidly

and gaping, with apposite margins each slightly

concave.

Except for one so noted, new names of species,

despite their geographic origin, are taken from

figures in mythology of the Inca nation and are

nouns standing in apposition to the generic name.

Relationships of the species are not extensively

discussed as they are best seen in the three keys.

Abbreviations are as follow: AMNH, American

Museum of Natural History; NZOI, New Zealand

Oceanographic Institute; USNM (United States

National Museum collections), National Museum

of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.

Number of specimens examined from each

sample is indicated in parentheses after the sample

numbers.

Capital letters on the figures designate a part

of an animal and a lower-case letter modifies the

description of that part: B=head; D=dactyl;

E=epimeron; Fz=accessory flagellum; G=gnathopod; I = inner plate or inner ramus; J=pleon;

K—palp; L=molar; M=mandible; O=coxa;

P=pereopod; Q=outer plate or outer ramus;

R=uropod; T=telson; V=upper lip; W=epi-
NUMBER 133

stome; X=maxilla; Y=maxilliped; Z=lower lip.

s=setae removed; t:=right; z=broken. All other

letters are described in the figure legends.

Small circles drawn on bodies and appendages

in the figures mark the bases of missing spines or

setae. On bodies and pereopods these spines and

setae are missing on the specimens but on gnathopods these armaments have been omitted for clarity

of underlying structure. Pleopods are usually

omitted from body drawings.

Family DEXAMINIDAE

DIAGNOSIS.—Like the basic gammaridean (see

diagnosis, J. L. Barnard, 1969), but accessory

Hagellum reduced to two or fewer articles and at

least two urosomites coalesced.

Other families or genera with these two characters in combination have additional modifications, for example, corneal eyes in Ampeliscidae,

especially elongate pereopod 5 and uncleft,

linguiform telson in Paracalliope (Eusiridae), uniramus uropod 3 (several families), reduced coxa

I (several families), uncleft fleshy telson (several

families), elongate article 3, and mitten of gnathopod 2 (Lysianassidae).

Subfamily DEXAMININAE

DIAGNOSIS.—Dexaminid with pereopods 3-5

similar among themselves in shapes of articles 2-6.

The alternative Prophliantinae have pereopods

3 and 5 highly dissimilar in shapes of articles 2-5.

Lepechinella Stebbing

Lepechinella Stebbing, 1908:191—192.—J. L. Barnard, 1961:98-

99 [key].

Dorbanella Chevreux, 1914:1-4.

DIAGNOSIS.—Dexaminin with vertically extended

ocular lobe bearing two cusps pointing anteriorly;

eyes absent; mandible with palp; lower lip with

large fleshy inner lobes; palp of maxilla 1 biarticulate; palp of maxilliped 4-articulate; large processes

of body always located on dorsal midline, never

slightly subdorsal; only pleonites 5—6 coalesced.

TYPE-SPECIES.—L. chrysotheras Stebbing (1908).

Key I to Species of Lepechinella

1. One or more of pereonites 1—3 lacking sharp dorsal teeth, or teeth rudimentary 2

Pereonites 1-3 with long dorsal teeth, one-fifth or more as long as coxa 2 8

2. Pleonite 4 with dorsal notch and accessory tooth, cpimera 2-3 with side ridge, pereopods

3-5 very short, dactyls of pereopods 1-5 short L. aberrantis

Pleonite 4 lacking dorsal notch and accessory tooth, epimera 2—3 lacking side ridge, pereopods 3-5 and their dactyls elongate 3

3. Coxae 1-3 definitely bifid L. auca, new species

Coxae 1-3 not bifid 4

4. Body densely covered with setae and spines, many spines bifid L. raua, new species

Body not densely covered with setae and spines 5

5. Pereonite 1 with small anterodorsal tooth L. huaco, new species

Pereonite 1 lacking tooth 6

(5. Rostrum very short, extending less than 25 percent along article 1 of antenna 1, faciolateral

setae of epimera 1—2 in definite row L. cachi, new species

Rostrum extending 40 percent or more along article 1 of antenna 1, faciolateral setae of

epimera 1-2 not in row or absent 7

7. Telson cleft 40 percent of its length, epimeron 2 with side setae (not in rows) , first cephalic

tooth about 67 percent as long as rostrum, dactyls of pereopods 1-2 less than 1.4 times

as long as article 6 L. ultraabyssalis

Telson cleft 75 percent of its length, epimeron 2 lacking facial setae, first cephalic tooth

vestigial, dactyls of pereopods 1—2 nearly twice as long as article 6 L. cetrata

8. Pereonite 1 with only one tooth, outer ramus of uropod 1 immense or enlarged 9

Pereonite 1 with two dorsal teeth, outer ramus of uropod I ordinary ....10

9. Body naked, epimeron 1 softly rounded posteroventrally, coxae 1-2 scarcely or not bifid,

rami of uropod 2 extending equally L. monocuspidata

Body covered with setae, epimeron 1 with medium-sized tooth posteroventrally, coxae 1-2

deeply bifid nearly halfway, inner ramus of uropod 2 about one-third as long as outer

ramus ^- HCIHI. new species
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

10. Dorsal teeth of pereonites 1-2 less than one-fourth as long as coxa 2 11

Dorsal teeth of pereonites 1-2 half or more as long as coxa 2 12

11. Both covered with large spines, coxa 2 bifid, inner ramus of uropod 2 longer than outer

lamus L. occlo, new species

Body naked, coxa 2 pointed, inner ramus of uropod 2 half as long as outer ramus

L. pangola

12. Body covered evenly with setae or spines 13

Body not covered evenly with setae or spines, these usually sparse or absent 15

13. Pleonites with several accessory nodules besides main teeth 14

Pleonitcs lacking accessory nodules L. cura, new species

14. Rostrum reaching 87 percent along article 1 of antenna 1, coxa 1 deeply bifid

L. tnanco, new species

Rostrum reaching 33 percent along article 1 of antenna 1, coxa 1 not bifid L. echinata

1"). Dorsal teeth on pleonites 1-3 twice as long as those on pereon, tooth of pleonite 4

obsolescent L. curvispinosa

Dorsal teeth of pleonites 1-3 not enlarged, tooth on pleonite 4 well developed 16

16. Coxa 1 bifid usually one-third its length 17

Coxa 1 not bifid 20

17. First cephalic tooth much longer than rostrum, anterior tooth of coxa 5 much longer than

limbs of coxa 4, anterior tooth of coxa 6 hooked L. eupraxiella, new species

First cephalic tooth not longer than rostrum, anterior tooth of coxa 5 not longer than

limbs of coxa 4, anterior tooth of coxa 6 not hooked 18

18. Accessory teeth on pleon large, coxa 1 scarcely bifid L. turpis, new status

Accessory teeth on pleon very small, coxa 1 deeply bifid 19

19. F.pimeron 2 with horizontal row of facial setae, mandibular palp article 1 longer than

article 3, article 2 about 4 times as long as article 3, accessory teeth of pleon forming

nobs, accessory flagellum weakly elongate L. arctica

Epimeron 2 lacking row of facial setae, mandibular palp article 1 shorter than article 3,

article 2 about 3 times as long as article 3, accessory teeth of pleon distinctly elevated,

accessory flagellum elongate L. chrysotheras

20. Pereon and pleon with 1-6 accessory teeth in form of spiniform cusps or humps, special

dorsal rows of spines on pleon, first cephalic tooth much longer than short thick

rostrum L. wolffi

These characteristics absent 21

21. Epimera 1-2 with strong row of lateral setae L. sucia

Epimera 1—2 without lateral setal rows 22

22. Telson with long apical spine on each lobe, anterior dorsal teeth only half length of coxa 2,

latter evenly tapering L. drygalskii

Telson with short apical spine on each lobe, anterior dorsal teeth two-thirds length of

coxa 2, latter abruptly tapering L. bierii

Key II to Species of Lepechinella

(Partial key concerning only those species with body covered by spines and setae)

1. Dorsal teeth of pereonites 1-2 absent, many body spines bifid L. raua, new species

Dorsal teeth of pereonites 1-2 present, no body spines bifid 2

2. Dorsal teeth of pereonites 1-2 small, one-fifth as long as coxa 2, epimeron 2 with horizontal

row of lateral setae L. occlo, new species

Dorsal teeth of pereonites 1-2 large, half or more as long as coxa 2, epimeron 2 lacking

facial row of setae 3

3. Coxa 1 bifid one-third its length 4

Coxa 1 scarcely or not bifid 5

4. Inner rami of uropods 1-2 at least 67 percent as long as outer rami L tnanco, new species

Inner rami of uropods 1-2 one-third or less as long as outer rami L. uchu, new species

5. Inner rami of uropods 1-3 half as long as outer rami, dorsal teeth of pereonites 1-2 fully

as long as coxa 2 L. echinata

Inner rami of uropods 1-2 between 67 and 87 percent as long as outer rami, dorsal teeth

of pereonites 1-3 half as long as coxa 2 L. cura, new species
NUMBER 133

Key III to Species of Lepechinella

(Partial key concerning only those species with coxa 1 bifid at least one-fourth its length)

1. Rostrum leaching 25 percent along article 1 of antenna 1, pereonites 1-2 lacking dorsal

teeth L. auca, new species

Rostrum reaching 33-f percent along article 1 of antenna 1, pereonites 1-2 with dorsal

teeth 2

2. Coxa 2 bifid, inner rami of uropods 1-2 only 33 percent or less as long as outer rami

* L. uchu, new species

Coxa 2 not bifid, inner rami of uropods 1-2 about 67-f percent as long as outer rami 3

3. Rostrum extending 87 percent along article 1 of antenna 1, body covered with articulate

spines, inner ramus of uropod 2 reaching only 67 percent along outer ramus

L. manco, new species

Rostrum extending 50 percent or less along article 1 of antenna 1, body nearly naked, inner

ramus of uropod 2 reaching 87 percent along outer ramus 4

4. Epimeron 2 with faciolateral row of setae L. arctica

Epimeron 2 lacking faciolateral row of setae 5

5. First cephalic tooth much longer than rostrum, anterior tooth of coxa 5 much longer than

limbs of coxa 4, anterior tooth of coxa 6 hooked L. eupraxiella, new species

First cephalic tooth not much longer than rostrum (actually unknown but presumed could

not be overlooked if longer than rostrum) , anterior tooth of coxa 5 not longer than limbs

of coxa 4, anterior tooth of coxa 6 not hooked L. chrysotheras

Lepechinella aberrantis (J. L. Barnard)

FIGURES 1, 2

Atylus aberrantis J. L. Barnard, 1962:69, figs. 66, 67.

DIAGNOSIS.—Pereonites 1-6 without teeth, pereonite 7 with rudimentary posterodorsal tooth,

pleonites 1—3 with small tooth, pleonite 4 with

medium tooth and weak anterior tooth separated

by deep sinus from main tooth; body setae weak

or absent; epimera 1—3 with strongly convex

posterior margin, each with tiny posteroventral

cusp, epimeron 2 without lateral row of setae,

epimera 2-3 each with lateral ridge (also on epimeron 1 in certain specimens); rostrum short,

thick, extending along 50 percent of article 1 on

antenna 1, first cephalic tooth half as long as

rostrum, second tooth half or a third as long as

rostrum; mandibular palp article 3 as long as

article 1, article 2 twice as long as article 3;

anterior coxae short and broad, coxa 1 slightly

slipper-shaped, as broad at apex as at base, not

bifid, coxae 2—3 as long as coxa 1, broad and

apically truncate, coxa 4 scarcely concave ventrally,

coxa 5 with soft, minute anterior lobe, coxae 5-7

with rounded posteroventral corners; or pointed on

coxa 7; accessory flagellum very short, as broad

as long or 1.67 times as long as broad in male,

1-articulate; telson cleft two-thirds, lobes not gaping

but appressed [artificially spread in figures], each

apex with one small spine; uropod 1 ordinary;

outer ramus of uropod 2 reaching 67 percent along

inner ramus; inner ramus of uropod 3 slightly

shorter than outer ramus; pereopods short.

DESCRIPTION.—Mouthparts as shown for Lepechinella occlo, new species, except as follows:

NZOI-709, upper lip only slightly emarginate, inner

plate of maxilla 1 with three setae, outer plate of

maxilliped with six medial and five distal spines

and setae; Vema 11-38, upper lip evenly rounded

below, palp article 3 of mandible with three

terminal setae and no middle seta, molar seta very

long, inner lobes of lower lip smaller.

Vema 1-1-38: Article 2 of antenna 1 twice as long

as article 1, article 3 half as long as article 1,

flagellum broken; articles 1-5 of antenna 2 equal to

each other in length, flagellum as long as articles

4-5 of peduncle; uropod 3 as in Lepechinella cachi,

new species, including article 2 (also on NZOI

E-709); differing from holotype in slight cusp on

coxa 7, slightly larger tooth on epimera 1—3 and

bevelment of coxae 3—4.

NZOI F.709: Differing from holotype in longei

first cephalic tooth but second tooth shorter than

on holotype; dorsal teeth longer on pereonites 6-7

and pleonites 1-6; pleonite 6 bearing tooth; coxa

7 with sharp posteroventral tooth perhaps overlooked or damaged in type; presence of facial ridge

on epimeron 1.
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

01

FIGURE l.—Lepechinella aberranlis (). L. Barnard), female, 4.8 mm, Vema 14-38.
NUMBER 133

FIGURE 2.-Lepechinella aberrantis (J. L. Barnard), male, 6.1 mm, NZOI E709.
10

SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

MATERIAL.-Vetna 14-38 (female, 4.8 mm); NZOI

E709 (male, 6.1 mm).

REMARKS.—This species is as close to Atylus as

it is to the type-species of Lepechinella and is

especially like Atylus in its head, accessory flagellum, coxae, dorsal teeth, short pereopods, and

epimera, but unlike Atylus it bears inner lobes on

the lower lip.

DISTRIBUTION.—South Africa, 4893 m; New Zealand, 1683 m; east of Madagascar, 1421-1750 m.

Lepechinella arctica Schellenberg

Dorbanella spez. Sclidlenberg, 1925:206-207, fig. 6.

Lepechinella arctica Schellenberg, 1926:394 [footnote].-Gurjanova, 1951:677-678, fig. 465.

^Lepechinella schellenbergi Stephensen, 1944:19-20, fig. 11.

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior dorsal teeth slightly less

than half as long as coxa 2, posterior teeth about

two-thirds as long as coxa 2, pereonite 1 with two

teeth, pereonite 2 to pleonite 4 with one large

posterior tooth, pleonites 1—3 with small accessory

nobs, vestigial on pereonites 3—7; body dorsally

with sparse setae or thin spines; epimera 1—3

nearly straight posteriorly, each with small sharp

posteroventral tooth, no sinuses, epimeron 2 with

horizontal row of lateral setae; rostrum long and

thin, extending along half of article 1 on antenna

1, both cephalic teeth extending as far as rostrum;

mandibular palp article 1 longer than article 3,

article 2 about 4 times as long as article 3; coxa 1

bifid about one-fourth its length, each point simple,

coxa 2 as long as coxa 1, lanceolate, coxa 3 weakly

bifid, posterior limb cuspiform and small, coxa 4

evenly, weakly, and softly bifid, coxa 5 with blunt

anterior cusp as long as coxa 4, coxa 6 with small

anterior cusp, coxae 5-6 with rounded posteroventral corners, coxa 7 with slightly acute posteroventral corner, accessory flagellum of medium

elongation, 1-articulate; telson cleft halfway, each

lobe with one apical spine about as long as

remainder of telson; uropods 1-3 ordinary.

REMARKs.-Stephensen (1944) did not dissect

the mouthparts of his material so we do not know

if the mandibular palp of L. schellenbergi fits L.

arctica.

DISTRIBUTION.-North of Spitsbergen, 1000 m;

?Norwegian Basin, 66°N 56°W, 599-682 m.

Lepechinella auca, new species

FIGURE 3

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior teeth obsolete, only humps

present, pereonite 1 with two humps, pereonites

2—6 with one hump or sinuous dorsal margin,

pereonite 7 with definite tooth, pleonites 1-4 with

medium-sized and sharp tooth, no accessory teeth;

one tubercle present on ventrolateral margins of

pereonites 1-6; pleon with sparse dorsal setae,

posterior margin of epimeron 1 convex, of epimeron

2 scarcely convex, of epimeron 3 straight, each with

sharp, medium-sized posteroventral tooth, epimera

2—3 excavate ventrally, no facial rows of setae;

rostrum small, thin, extending along 20 percent of

article 1 on antenna 1 [antenna 1 slightly disjointed

from head in Figure 3] first cephalic tooth about

half as long as rostrum, second tooth slightly longer

than rostrum; mandibular palp article 3 twice

as long as article 1, article 2 twice as long as article

3; coxa 1 slipper-shaped, bifid one-fourth its length,

coxa 2 as long as coxa 1 and bifid, coxa 3 as long

as coxa 1 and asymmetrically bifid, coxa 4 asymmetrically bifid, anterior limb sharp, posterior limb

rounded and obsolescent, coxa 5 with sharp anteroventral lobe as long as coxa 4, coxa 6 with blunt

anteroventral lobe as long as coxa 4, coxa 7 slightly

bifid, limbs rounded; accessory flagellum slightly

longer than broad, 1-articulate; telson cleft twothirds, gaping but apposing margins straight,

submedial apex of each lobe with one long spine;

inner ramus of uropod 1 extending 75 percent along

outer ramus, uropod 2 ordinary; inner ramus of

uropod 3 extending 85 percent along outer ramus,

including short barrel-shaped article 2; dactyl of

pereopods 1-2 nearly 1.5 times as long as article 6.

DESCRIPTION.—Mouthparts as shown for Lepechinella occlo, new species, but outer plate of maxilliped lacking proxiinalmost medial spine; accessory

llagellum like that of L. occlo, bearing two long

apical and one long, one short medial setae.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 139124, immature female,

1.3 mm. Unique.

TYPE-LocALiTY.-£frflm>? 72, off Chile, 31°O6.5'S,

71°48.5'W, 480-510 fins, 24 June 1962, Menzies

Trawl.

RELATIONSHIP.—This species differs from L. ultraabyssalis Birstein and Vinogradova (1960) in the

shorter rostrum, longer second cephalic tooth,

shorter article 3 of the mandibular palp, bifid
NUMBER 133 11

K3

FIGURE 5.—Lepechinella auca, new species, holotype, female 4.3 mm, Eltanin 72.
12 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

coxae 1—3, deep cleft of the telson and slight ventral

excavation on epimera 2-3.

Lepechinella auca differs from L. cetrata K. H.

Barnard (1932) in the presence of a tooth on

epimeron 1, the small rostrum and the strongly

bifid coxae 1—3.

DisTRiBUTioN.-Chile, 878-933 m.

Lepechinella bierii J. L. Barnard

Lepechinella bierii J. L. Barnard, 1957:17-20, pis. 4, 5.

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior dorsal teeth two-thirds

length of coxa 2, posterior teeth three-fourths as

long as coxa 2, pereonite 1 with two teeth; pereonite

2 to pleonite 4 with one tooth, no accessory teeth;

body with sparse setae dorsally; epimeron 1 much

larger than epimera 2—3, epimera 1-2 with slightly

convex posterior margin, epimeron 3 with margin

nearly straight, each with medium to small, sharp

posteroventral tooth and slight sinus, no lateral

setae on epimeron 2; rostrum and cephalic side

teeth extending evenly about halfway along article

1 of antenna 1, rostrum slightly erect; mandibular

palp article 3 scarcely longer than article 1, article

2 about 3 times as long as article 3; anterior coxae

short and broad, coxae 2—4 with sharp midanterior

bulge, coxa 1 not bifid, apically truncate and serrate, coxa 2 shorter than coxa 1, broad, narrowing

abruptly in distal third, with weak posteroventral

disp indicating bifidation, coxae 3—4 moderately

bifid, coxa 5 with sharp anterior cusp as long as

coxa 4, coxa 6 softly bifid, coxa 7 with long sharp

posteroventral hook; accessory flagellum very

elongate, 1-articulate; telson cleft halfway, each lobe

witli short apical spine; inner ramus of uropod 1

reaching 67 percent along outer ramus; uropods

2-3 ordinary; dactyl of pereopods 1-2 about 1.5

times as long as article 6.

DISTRIBUTION.—California, ca. 1000 m.

Lepechinella cachi, new species

FIGURE 4

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior dorsal teeth absent, pereonites 4-5 with slight hump, sharper on pereonites

6—7, pleonites 1-4 with definite, small to medium

tooth, no accessory teeth except pleonites 2 and 4

with extremely weak hump; pleon with sparse

dorsal setae; epimera 1—3 convex posteriorly, with

weak to small posteroventral tooth, weak sinus

above tooth, epimera 1-2 with lateral row of setae;

rostrum small, sharp, extending along 20 percent

of article 1 on antenna 1, first cephalic tooth very

small, second intermediate in size between rostrum

and first tooth; mandibular palp article 3 about

3.5 times as long as article 1, article 2 about 1.4

times as long as article 3; coxa 1 slightly slippershaped, with definite ventral margin, not bifid,

coxae 2-4 with anterior bulge, coxa 2 slightly

shorter than coxa 1, tapering but subtruncate, coxa

3 nearly rectangular, weakly concave ventrally,

coxa 4 similar, coxa 5 with anterior lobe as long

as coxa 4 but no posterior lobe, coxa 6 with weak

anterior lobe, slightly extended and rounded

posteriorly, coxa 7 rounded posteroventrally; accessory flagellum elongate, 1-articulate; telson cleft

about 30 percent, each lobe with long apical spine

and one midlateral spine; inner ramus of uropod 1

extending 67 percent along outer ramus; outer

ramus of uropod 2 extending 75 percent along inner

ramus; inner ramus of uropod 3 extending 75

percent along outer ramus (including article 2).

DESCRIPTION.—Mouthparts and pereopodal dactyls

generally like those drawn for Lepechinella occlo,

new species, except for mandibular palp (which

see), apical protrusion on palp of maxilla 1 more

rounded, spines on outer plate strongly serrate,

outer plate of maxilliped with more spines on

inner margin like Lepechinella aberrantis.

Juvenile, 2.6 mm, Eltanin 112-33: Rostrum and

dorsal body processes more rudimentary than in

adult, spines and setae of appendages sparse.

HOLOTYPE.—USNM 139125, ovigerous female,

7.4 mm.

TYPE-LOCALITY.—Eltanin 112, Drake Passage,

56°02'S 61°56'W, 4008 m, 20 July 1962.

REMARKS.—This species differs from L. cetrata

K. H. Barnard (1932) in the shorter rostrum, the

subequally extending cephalic teeth, the short cleft

of the telson and the rounded anteroventral corner

of the head.

It differs from /.. pangola J. L. Barnard (1962)

in the absence of minute dorsal points on pereonites

1—6, the lack of a posterior tooth on coxa 7 and the

shorter cleft on the telson.

Lepechinella cachi is similar to L. ultraabyssalis

Birstein and Vinogradova (1960) but differs in

coxae 1, 2, and 5, in the short outer ramus of

uropod 2 and in the shorter telsonic cleft.
MJMBF.R 133 13

Gl

FIGURE A.—Lepechinella cachi, new species, holotype, female, 7.4 mm, Ellanin 112.
11 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

MATERiAL.-£/famn 112 (10); Vema 15-118 (1),

15-119 (1).

DISTRIBUTION.—Drake Passage, 3777-4008 m.

Lepechinella cetrata K. H. Barnard

Lepechinella cetrata K. H. Barnard, 1932:186-187, fig. 114.

DIAGNOSIS.—Pereonites 1-6 with weak dorsal

humps, pereonite 1 with two humps, pereonite 7

with low, thick, slightly sharp tooth, pleonites 1-4

with increasingly larger and sharper dorsal teeth,

no accessory teeth; pleon with sparse dorsal setae;

epimera 1-3 scarcely convex posteriorly, epimeron

1 with sharp posteroventral corner, epimera 2-3

with slightly sharp tooth and weak sinus, no lateral

setae on epimeron 2; rostrum large and elongate,

relationship to antenna 1 unknown, first cephalic

tooth extremely small, second tooth twice as long

as first and about 25—33 percent as long as rostrum;

mandibular palp unknown; anterior coxae short

to medium in length, coxa 1 slipper-shaped, with

extended anteroventral corner, ventrally truncate,

not bifid, coxae 2—3 as long as coxa 1, weakly bifid,

coxa 4 slightly shorter than 1-3, weakly concave

ventrally, coxa 5 with soft anterior lobe as long as

coxa 4, coxa 6 with sharper and smaller anteroventral lobe, softly quadrate posteroventrally, coxa

7 slightly sharpened at posteroventral corner; accessory flagellum "minute"; telson cleft three-fourths

iis length, lobes not gaping as apposing margins

tumid, each lobe with "short" apical spine; uropods

said to be as in L. chrysotheras; dactyls of pereopods

1—2 nearly twice as long as sixth articles.

DISTRIBUTION.—South Shetland Islands, 342 m.

Lepechinella chrysotheras Stebbing

Lepechinella chrysotheras Stebbing, 1908:192-193, pi. 27.-

K. H. Barnard, 1925:356-357.-Stephensen, 1944:19.

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior dorsal teeth half as long as

coxa 2, posterior teeth two-thirds as long as coxa 2,

pereonite I with two teeth, pereonite 2 to pleonite

4 with one main tooth, pereonites 6—7 with one

small accessory tooth, pleonites 1—3 with two small

accessory teeth; body naked; epimera 1-3 posteriorly convex, each posteroventral corner with

medium sharp tooth, sinus well developed on

epimeron 3, slightly on epimera 1-2; rostrum

extending along 40 percent of article 1 on antenna

1, cephalic teeth either absent or overlooked;

mandibular palp article 3 slightly longer than

article 1, article 2 about 3 times length of article

3; coxa 1 evenly bifid one-third or more its length,

coxa 2 with long anterior spike reaching apex of

coxa 1, with posterior extension near base but not

bifid, coxae 3—4 bifid but anterior limb as long as

coxae 1-2 and posterior limb very short, coxae 3—4

with slight anterior bulge, coxae 5—6 bifid, 6 evenly,

5 with posterior limb shorter than anterior, coxa 7

with rounded anterior lobe and sharply extended

posteroventral corner; accessory flagellum elongate,

apparently 1-articulate; telson cleft halfway, lobes

thin, each with one long apical setal spine; uropods

1 and 3 with inner ramus slightly shorter than outer

ramus; uropod 2 ordinary.

REMARKS.—K. H. Barnard's South African specimens differ in the obsolescence of posterior cusps

or limbs of coxae 3-7 and epimera 1-3; possibly

they represent a subspecies.

DISTRIBUTION.—North of British Isles, 59°41'N,

03°08'W, 850 m; 61°15'N, 09°35'W, 900 m; off

South Africa, 700 fms.

Lepechinella cur a, new species

FIGURE 5

DIAGNOSIS.—All dorsal teeth about half as long

as coxa 2; pereonite 1 with two teeth but posterior

tooth shorter than anterior, one tooth each on

pereonite 2 to pleonite 4, no accessory teeth; body

densely covered with small setae and spines; epimera 1-3 with slightly convex posterior margin,

each with medium to large, sharp posteroventral

tooth, no facial rows of setae; rostrum thin, extending along 40 percent of article 1 on antenna 1,

first cephalic tooth 1.2 times as long as rostrum,

second tooth as long as rostrum; mandibular palp

article 3 about 2.2 times as long as article 1, article

2 about 1.7 times as long as article 3; coxa 1 slightly

slipper-shaped, ventrally serrate and scarcely marked

as bifid, coxa 2 slightly shorter than coxa 1, weakly

and asymmetrically bifid, coxa 3 strongly and asymmetrically bifid, coxa 4 evenly and strongly bifid,

coxa 5 with long anterior lobe as long as coxa 4,

posteroventral corner with sharp cusp, coxa 6 with

antero and posteroventral corners rounded, coxa 7

with sharp and extended posteroventral corner;

accessory flagellum elongate and 1-articulate; telson
NUMBER 133 15

R3

FIGURE h.—Lepechinella cura, new species, holotype, female, 6.9 mm, Vema 15-35, pereopod 2

missing.
10 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGT

cleft hallway, each subdistal and medial apex with

long spine; inner ramus of uropod 1 extending 67

percent along outer ramus; inner ramus of uropod 2

extending 90 percent along outer ramus; inner

ramus of uropod 3 extending 70 percent along outer

ramus.

DESCRIPTION.—Mouthparts like those of Lepechinella occlo, new species, but upper lip more strongly

bilobed; right molar with long seta, left with

vestigial seta; inner lobes of lower lip slightly

enlarged; inner plates of maxilla 1 with one seta

on one side, two on the other side; pereopodal

dactyls as figured for Lepeclii?iella uchu, new

species, article (3 of pereopods 1-5 with active

margins bearing single spines in tandem except for

paired locking spines.

HOLOTYPE.—AMNH, female, 6.9 mm. Unique.

TYPE-LOCALITY.— Vema 15-35, off Pacific Panama,

O7°3O'X, 79°16'\V, 14 November 1958, 2234 m.

Lepechinella curvispinosa Pirlot

Lepechinella curvispinosa Pirlot, 1933:156-161, figs. 55-57.

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior dorsal teeth about twothirds length of coxa 2, posterior teeth twice as

long as coxa 2, pereonite 1 with two teeth, pereonite

2 to pleonite 3 with one tooth, teeth of pleonites

1-3 much larger than teeth on pereon, dorsal tooth

of pleonite 1 very small; body with dorsal setae;

epimera 1—3 straight posteriorly, epimera 1-2

softly quadrate posteroventrally, epimeron 3 with

softly rounded posteroventral extension; rostrum

short, semi-erect, extending less than 25 percent

along article 1 of antenna 1, first and second

cephalic teeth half as long as rostrum, scarcely

projecting (like some species of Atylus); mandibular palp article 3 as long as article 1, article 2

about 1 times as long as article 3; anterior coxae

very short, coxa 1 slipper-shaped, anteroventral

corner strongly extended, not bifid, coxa 2 broad,

then abruptly narrowed to sharp point, coxa 3

softly and weakly bifid, coxa 4 scarcely bifid,

posteroventral limb sharp, anteroventral limb

rounded, coxa 5 with sharp anteroventral limb as

long as coxa 4, coxa 6 with weak, soft anteroventral

lobe, rounded posteroventrally, coxa 7 witli vestigial

posteroventral cusp; accessory flagellum elongate,

I-articulate; telson apparently cleft one-third its

length, each lobe thin and with one long apical

setal spine; inner rami of uropods 1 and 3 (apparently) extending about 67 percent along outer

rami, uropod 2 ordinary; dactyls of peropods 1—2

about 1.75 times as long as sixth articles.

DISTRIBUTION.—Ceram Sea, Indonesia, 02°40'S,

128°37'E, 835 m.

Lepechinella drygalskii Schellenberg

Lepechinella drygalskii Schellenberg, 1926:345-347, fig. 50.-

Nicholls, 1938:97.

DIAGNOSIS.—All dorsal teeth about half as long as

coxa 2, pereonite 1 with two teeth, pereonite 2 to

pleonite 4 with one tooth, no accessory teeth; body

with sparse dorsal setae; epimeron 3 nearly straight

posteriorly, epimera 1—3 with short, sharp posteroventral tooth, apparently epimeron 2 lacking facial

setae; rostrum of medium length and thin, extension along antenna 1 unknown, first cephalic tooth

as long as rostrum, second tooth two-thirds as long

as first; mandibular palp article 1 unknown, article

2 about 3 times as long as article 2; coxa 1 slippershaped, thick, not bifid, coxa 2 much shorter than

coxa 1, broad but evenly tapering to point, coxa 3

weakly bifid, anterior limb longer than posterior,

both sharp, coxa 4 evenly and weakly bifid, limbs

sharp, coxa 5 with sharp anterior limb, no posterior

limb, coxa 6 weakly bifid, limbs weak and softly

rounded, coxa 7 with sharp posteroventral corner;

accessory flagellum elongate, 1-articulate; telson

cleft about halfway, each lobe with long apical

spine; inner ramus of uropods 1-2 extending about

HO percent along outer ramus; uropod 3 broken.

DISTRIBUTION.—Antarctica, only known depth,

288-300 fms.

Lepechinella echinata (Chevreux)

Dorbanella echinata Chevreux, 1914:1-4, figs. 1-3.

Leperhinella echinata.—]. L. Barnard, 1962:63, figs. 56, 57.

DIAGNOSIS.—Dorsal teeth as long as coxa 2, pereonite 1 with two teeth, pereonite 2 to pleonite 4

with one tooth, pereonite 4 to pleonite 4 with

accessory nobs anterior to main teeth; body sparsely

covered with heavy spines especially on nobs;

epimera 1-3 straight posteriorly, each with medium

to long, straight, sharp, extended tooth turning

slightly veiltially, no row of facial setae on epimeron 2; rostrum short, reaching about 33 percent
NUMBER 133 17

along article 1 of antenna 1, slightly or strongly

erect, first cephalic tooth very long, extending about

67 percent along article 1 of antenna 1, second

tooth obsolescent; mandibular palp article 3 nearly

twice as long as article 1, article 2 about 2.2 times

as long as article 3; coxa 1 very long, thin, lanceolate, not bifid, coxa 2 shorter and slightly thicker

basally than coxa 1, lanceolate, coxa 3 shorter than

coxa 2, weakly bifid; with medium anterior lobe,

coxa 4 weakly bifid, coxa 5 with anterior lobe as

long as coxa 4, coxa 6 weakly and softly bifid, coxa

7 with scarcely extended, sharp posteroventral

corner; accessory rlagellum elongate, 1-articulate;

telson cleft half to two-thirds its length, each lobe

thin and armed apically w

r

ith long setal spine; inner

ramus of uropods 1—3 reaching halfway along outer

ram us.

South African specimens have the rostrum more

erect, coxae 2—3 thicker and the telson less cleft

than specimens from Bay of Biscay.

DISTRIBUTION.—Bay of Biscay, 4380 m; South

Africa, 4050 m.

Lepechinella eupraxiella, new species

Lepechinella arctica.—Gurjanova, 1951:677—678, fig. 465 [not

Schellenberg].

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior dorsal teeth about half

length of coxa 2, posterior teeth fully as long as

coxa 2, pereonite 1 with two teeth, pereonite 2 to

pleonite 4 with one large posterior tooth, pleonites

1-3 with one small accessory tooth; body with

sparse setae or thin spines dorsally; epimera 1-3

each with slightly convex posterior margin and

small to medium, slightly blunt posteroventral

tooth, strong sinus on epimera 1—2, epimeron 2

with one stout lateral spine; rostrum thin and

small, extending less than halfway along article 1

of antenna 1, first cephalic tooth larger than rostrum, second tooth as long as first but thicker;

mandibular palp unknown; coxa 1 bifid about onethird its length, each point also bifid, coxa 2 as

long as coxa 1, lanceolate and slightly bifid, coxa

3 with lanceolate process as long as coxa 2, bifid,

with strong posterior limb, coxa 4 asymmetrically

bifid, coxa 5 bifid, with elongate anterior process

as long as that on coxa 3, posterior cusp short,

coxa 6 with medium-sized anterior hook pointing

forward, posteroventral corner weakly rounded,

coxa 7 with weakly extended posteroventral corner;

accessory flagellum unknown; telson deeply cleft,

with one seta on each apex (description); uropod

2 apparently ordinary, uropods 1-2 poorly known.

ETYMOLOGY.—Named for the great Russian carcinologist, Eupraxie Gurjanova.

HOLOTYPE.—Specimen in figure 465 of Gurjanova

(1951).

TYPK-LocALiTY.-Apparently 78°02'N, 09°12'W.

RKMARKS.—This species differs from L, arctica in

the bifid points of the two limbs of coxa 1, the

larger cephalic teeth, the large hook on coxa 6

and the condition of the epimera, especially the

one large lateral spine of epimeron 2 instead of a

horizontal row of setae.

DISTRIBUTION.—Between Spitzbergen and Greenland.

Lepechinella huaco, new species

FIGURE 6

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior teeth obsolescent, pereonite

1 witli one definite anterior dorsal tooth, pereonites 2-4 lacking teeth, pereonite 5 to pleonite 4

witli one sharp tooth, posterior teeth about half

length of coxa 2, accessory teeth absent but pleonite 4 with small spinose hump anterior to main

tooth; body with sparse dorsal setae; epimera 1—3

posteriorly convex, each with posteroventral tooth,

small on epimera 1 and 3, medium on epimeron 2,

latter with row of lateral setae; rostrum thin and

of medium thickness, extending along 33 percent

of article 1 on antenna 1, first cephalic tooth 75

percent length of rostrum, second tooth about half

length of rostrum; mandibular palp article 3 about

twice as long as article 1, article 2 about twice as

long as article 3, articles elongate; coxa 1 weakly

slipper-shaped, not bifid, coxae 2-4 with anterior

bulge, coxa 2 evenly tapering, subtruncate, coxa

3 bifid, limbs soft, posterior slightly the shorter,

coxa 4 evenly and softly bifid, coxa 5 with anterior

lobe as long as coxa 4, coxa 6 with weak and

rounded anterior lobe, coxa 7 with sharp, slightly

extended posteroventral corner; accessory flagellum

elongate, I-articulate; telson cleft nearly halfway,

each lobe with long apical spine and two long lateral setae on each side; inner ramus of uropod 1

extending 07 percent along outer ramus; outer ramus of uropod 2 slightly shorter than inner ramus;
18 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

FIGURE 6.—Lepechinella huaco, new species, holotype, female, 8.6 mm, Eltanin 350.
NUMBER IS3 19

inner ramus of uropod 3 extending 90 percent

along outer ramus.

DESCRIPTION.—Flagellum ot antenna 1 slightly

shorter than peduncular articles 1-5 of antenna 2,

flagellum ot antenna 2 slightly longer than peduncle of antenna 1; mouthparts like those figured for

Lepechinella occlo, new species, but mandibular

palp longer and thinner, inner plate of maxilla 1

with 2 or 3 setae, inner plate of maxilla 2 slightly

thinner, outer plate of maxilliped with 13 spines

and setae, with 6 stout spines on medial edge;

outer ramus of uropod 3 with second article.

HOLOTYPE.-USNM 139128, female, 8.6 mm.

TYPE-LOCALITY.—Eltanin 350, Drake Passage,

55°00'S, 58°57'W, 2452 m, 4 December, 1962.

MATERIAL.—Three specimens from the typelocality.

Lepechinella manco, new species

FIGURE 7

DIAGNOSIS.—All dorsal teeth about half length

of coxa 2, pereonite 1 with two teeth, pereonite 2

to pleonite 4 with one main tooth, one or two accessory nodules present on pereonites 2—7, pleonites

1—3 with two or three accessory nodules, none on

pleonite 4; body covered with heavy articulate

spines; epimera 1—3 posteriorly convex, each with

long, thin, sharp posteroventral tooth, epimeron 3

with facial row of spines; epimeron 1 with subventral facial row of heavy setae; rostrum very long,

extending along 87 percent of article 1 on antenna

1, both cephalic teeth about half as long as rostrum; mandibular palp article 3 twice as long as

article 1, article 2 twice as long as article 3; coxa

1 bifid one-third its length, coxae 2—4 with angular

anterior bulge, coxa 2 as long as coxa 1, sharply

tapering, coxa 3 asymmetrically bifid, anterior limb

long and sharp but shorter than coxa 2, coxa 4

sharply and slightly asymmetrically bifid, coxa 5

with long sharp anterior limb, no posterior limb,

coxa with weak, rounded anterior limb, coxa 7

with long thin sharp posteroventral tooth; accessory flagellum slightly elongate, 1—articulate; telson cleft halfway, each lobe with long apical spine

and long lateral spine; inner ramus of uropod 1

slightly shortened; outer ramus of uropod 2 extending 67 percent along inner ramus; inner ramus of

uropod 3 slightly shortened.

DESCRIPTION.—Mouthparts as shown for Lepechinella occlo, new species, but lobes of upper lip

slightly more asymmetrical, mandibular palp with

two terminal and three or four subterminal setae

on article 3; outer plate of maxilliped with five

or six spines on inner margin; accessory flagellum

of medium elongation, longer than shown for L.

occlo.

HOLOTYPE.—AMNH, female, 5.4 mm.

TYPE-LOCALITY.— Vema 14-49, northwest of Crete,

35°46'N, 23°28'E, 843 m, 7 October 1958.

MATERIAL.—Six specimens from the type-locality.

RELATIONSHIP.—This species differs from L. echinata (Chevreux, 1914) in the elongate rostrum,

long second cephalic tooth, bifid coxa 1, long coxa

3, elongate inner rami of uropods 1 and 3, and

the short outer ramus of uropod 2.

DISTRIBUTION.—Mediterranean Sea, 843 m.

Lepechinella monocuspidata J. L. Barnard

Lepechinella monocuspidata J. L. Barnard, 1961:99, fig. 68.

DIAGNOSIS.—Length of dorsal teeth and coxae of

medium size relative to most extreme species of

genus, dorsal teeth about two-thirds length of coxa

2, pereonite 1 with one middorsal tooth, pereonite

2 to pleonite 4 with one tooth, no accessory teeth;

hotly naked; epimera 1—3 nearly straight posteriorly, epimeron 1 with softly rounded posteroventral corner, epimera 2—3 with weak sinus and small

sharp tooth, epimeron 2 lacking lateral setae; rostrum thin, extending less than half way along

article 1 of antenna 1, first cephalic tooth as long

as rostrum, second tooth slightly shorter; mandibular palp unknown; coxa 1 deeply serrate, indistinctly bifid, otherwise slipper-shaped, coxa 2

posteroventrally serrate but not bifid, coxae 3—4

weakly bifid, coxa 3 asymmetrically, coxa 4 symmetrically, coxa 5 with anterior limb as long as

coxa 4, coxa 6 with weakly rounded anterior lobe,

bluntly extended posteroventrally, coxa 7 with

small sharp, curved posteroventral tooth; accessory

flagellum uniarticulate, length unknown; telson

deft halfway, lobes scarcely gaping, much like that

of Atylus, each lobe with one long apical setal

spine; outer ramus of uropod 1 unusually thick,

length of inner ramus unknown; uropod 2 very

small, rami extending equally; uropod 3 ordinary.

RENfARKS.—Probably the view of coxa 2 shown

by J. L. Barnard (1961, fig. 68A) on the whole
20 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

FIGURE l.—I.epechinella manco, new species, holotype, female, 5.4 mm, Vema 14-49; Vz=female,

5.5 mm.
NUMBER 133 21

animal is erroneous; a correct view is in figure 68c

of the same publication.

DISTRIBUTION.—East Africa, 1510 m.

MATKRIAL.-NZOI E417 (3), F753 (5), F755 (14).

DISTRIBUTION.—Off east coast, South Island, New

Zealand, 721-860 m.

Lepechinella occlo, new species

FIGURES 8, 9

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior dorsal teeth one-fifth length

of coxa 2, posterior teeth one-half length of coxa

2; pereonite 1 with two teeth, pereonite 2 to pleonite 4 with one main tooth, accessory teeth composed of very low hump on pereonites 4—6, two

humps on pereonite 7 to pleonite 3; body sparsely

covered with long setal spines; epimera 1—3 with

convex posterior margin, each with medium, sharp

posteroventral tooth, each with row of lateral setae;

rostrum thin, extending along 40 percent of article

1 on antenna 1, first cephalic tooth 67 percent as

long as rostrum, second tooth 75 percent as long

as rostrum; article 3 of mandibular palp twice as

long as article 1, article 2 twice as long as article

3; coxa 1 slipper-shaped, weakly bifid, coxae 2—4

with weak anterior bulge, coxa 2 broad, slightly

shorter than coxa 1, abruptly tapering apically but

narrowly bifid, coxa 3 extending as far as coxa 2,

asymmetrically and sharply bifid, coxa 4 weakly and

sharply bifid, coxa 5 with long sharp anterior lobe

as long as coxa 4, coxa 6 with weak anterior lobe,

rounded posteroventrally, coxa 7 with sharp, curved

posteroventral cusp; accessory flagellum scarcely

longer than broad, 1—articulate; telson cleft twothirds, lobes thin, long, gaping but apposing margins straight, each lobe with one long apical

spine-seta; inner ramus of uropod 1 reaching 75

percent along outer ramus; outer ramus of uropod

2 slightly shorter than inner ramus; inner ramus

of uropod 3 scarcely shorter than outer ramus.

Juvenile, smallest, 3.8 mm long: Rostrum short

and not exceeding cephalic teeth, head with only

13 spines from lateral view (compare adult figure),

coxa 1 strongly subbifid; article 2 of gnathopod 1

not strongly expanded distoposteriorly; epimera 2-3

each with only two setae in setal row; anterior

pereonal teeth shortened, but remaining teeth as

well developed as in adult; tooth on pleonite 6 absent.

HOLOTYPE.—NZOI, ?male, 9.6 mm.

TYPE-LOCALITY.—NZOI F755, southeast of Kaikoura, New Zealand, 43°OO'S, 174°30'E, 721 m, 19

August 1966.

Lepechinella pangola J. L. Barnard

Lepechinella pangola J. L. Barnard, 1962:63-64, figs. 58, 59.

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior dorsal teeth rudimentary,

posterior teeth of small to medium size, pereonite

1 with two teeth, pereonite 2 to pleonite 4 with

one tooth, no accessory teeth; body naked; epimera

1—3 scarcely or not convex posteriorly, each with

small, slightly reverted posteroventral cusp, sinuses

small to absent, no lateral setae on epimeron 2;

rostrum extending about halfway along article 1

of antenna 1, but otherwise small, first cephalic

tooth as long as rostrum, second tooth slightly

shorter; mandibular palp not well described; anterior coxae short and broad, coxa 1 weakly slipper-shaped, not bifid, coxae 2-4 with slight midanterior bulge, coxa 2 slightly to moderately narrowed apically, weakly pointed, coxae 3—4 weakly

bifid, coxa 5 with anterior cusp as long as coxa 4,

coxa 6 with blunt short anteroventral cusp, coxae

6-7 with weak to medium, sharp posteroventral

cusp; accessory flagellum unknown; telson cleft

nearly halfway, each lobe with apical spine of unknown length, sides of telson with one or five

spines; inner ramus of uropod 1 extending halfway

along outer ramus, uropods 2—3 ordinary.

DISTRIBUTION.—South Africa, 4893 m.

Lepechinella rana, new species

FIGURE 10

DIAGNOSIS.—Pereonites 1—4 lacking dorsal teeth,

large tooth on pereonite 5 to pleonite 4, teeth

about half to fully as long as coxa 2 (latter small),

no accessory teeth; body covered with long setae

and bifid spines; epimera 1—3 with convex posterior

margin, each with small to medium, sharp posteroventral cusp, epimera with facial setae but no rows;

rostrum thin, extending along 40 percent of article

1 on antenna 1, first cephalic tooth as long as rostrum, second tooth about 67 percent as long as

rostrum; mandibular palp article 3 longer than

article 1, article 2 about 2.2—2.5 times as long as

article 3; anterior coxae of medium length, coxa 1

slender, tapering, slightly slipper-shaped, not bifid,
22 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

FIGURE %.—Lepechinella occlo, new species, '-male, 8.3 mm. N/OI F755, pereopod 4 partially

missing; v —holotype, ?male, 9.6 mm.
NUMBER 133 23

FIGURE 9.—Lepechinella occlo, new species, hnale, 8.3 mm, NZOI F755.
24 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

02

FIGURE \O.—Lepechinella raua, new species, holotype, male, 3.75 mm, Vema 15-23;

u = dorsal spine.
NUMBER 133 25

coxa 2 slightly shorter than coxa 1, tapering sharply,

coxa 3 with short, sharp anterior limb, obsolescent

posterior limb, coxa 4 nearly rectangular, softly

and weakly bifid, coxa 5 with small anterior lobe

as long as coxa 4, coxa 6 with weak, rounded anterior lobe, coxa 7 with rounded antero- and posteroventral corners; accessory flagellum elongate,

1-articulate; telson cleft halfway, each lobe with

one long and 0—1 short apical spines; inner ramus

of uropod 1 reaching 67 percent along outer ramus;

outer ramus of uropod 2 reaching 67 percent along

inner ramus; rami of uropod 3 broken, unknown.

DESCRIPTION.—Most of antennae missing; mouthparts generally like those of Lepechinella occlo, new

species, but ratio of mandibular palp articles 3 and

2 is 18:46 in the holotype and 18:36 in the female,

article 3 with three apical setae and two setae on

margin, article 2 with three setae on margin (or 5

in female), inner plate of maxilliped truncate distally, margin more oblique, and one inner plate of

holotype with four tooth-spines, other with normal

three; dactyls of pereopods like Lepechinella occlo.

HOLOTYPE.—AMNH, male, 3.75 mm.

TYPE-LOCALITY.— Vema 15-23, off Caribbean Panama, 09°46.3'N, 79°37.5'W, 10 November 1958, 566-

811 m.

MATERIAL.—The holotype and a female, 4.5 mm

from the type-locality.

Lepechinella sucia J. L. Barnard

Lepechinella sucia J. L. Barnard, 1961:99-101, fig. 69.

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior dorsal teeth about twothirds length of coxa 2, posterior teeth almost fully

as long as coxa 2, pereonite 1 with two teeth, pereonite 2 to pleonite 4 with one tooth, no accessory

teeth; body with a few spines on pleonite 4; epimera 1—3 posteriorly convex, each with medium

sharp tooth and weak sinus at posteroventral corner, epimera 1-2 with faciolateral row of setae;

rostrum reaching almost halfway along article 1

of antenna 1, first cephalic tooth as long as rostrum,

second tooth slightly shorter; mandibular palp article 3 slightly longer than article 1, article 2 nearly

3 times as long as article 3; anterior coxae of

medium length, coxae 2—4 with slightly midanterior

bulge, coxa 1 slipper-shaped, deeply serrate, not

bifid, coxa 2 slightly narrowed distally, scarcely

pointed, coxae 3—4 weakly bifid, coxa 5 with anterior limb as long as coxa 4, coxa 6 slightly extended and rounded posteroventrally, coxa 7 extended as sharp posteroventral tooth; accessory

flagellum elongate, 1—articulate; telson cleft halfway, each lobe with one long apical setal spine;

inner ramus of uropod 1 extending about 67 percent along outer ramus; uropods 2—3 ordinary.

DISTRIBUTION.—Tasman Sea, 3580 m.

Lepechinella turpis J. L. Barnard, new status

Lepechinella arctica turpis, J. L. Barnard, 1967:31-34, figs.

14, 15.

DIAGNOSIS.—Adult: Anterior dorsal teeth half as

long as coxa 2, posterior teeth fully as long as coxa

2, pereonite 1 with two teeth, pereonite 2 to pleonite 4 with one large posterior tooth, pereonite 7

with one large accessory tooth, pleonites 1—3 with

two large accessory teeth, pereonites 5—6 with one

or two accessory nobs; body with sparse setae or

thin spines dorsally; epimera 1—3 with slightly convex posterior margins, each with small to medium,

sharp posteroventral tooth, weak sinus, epimeron

2 with horizontal row of lateral setae; rostrum nearly

as long as article 1 of antenna 1, first cephalic tooth

only one-third as long as rostrum and second tooth

much shorter; mandibular palp article 3 longer

than article 1, article 2 about twice as long as

article 3; coxa 1 scarcely bifid, each point simple,

coxae 2-4 with subsharp midanterior bulge, coxa

2 slightly shorter than coxa 1, lanceolate, coxa 3

with lanceolate process, not bifid, coxa 4 similar to

3 but shorter, coxa 5 with sharp anterior cusp as

long as coxa 4, coxae 5—6 with rounded posteroventral corners, coxa 7 with slightly acute posteroventral corner; accessory fiagellum elongate, weakly

2—articulate; telson cleft halfway, each lobe with

one apical spine of unknown length and one large

lateral spine on each side; uropods 1—3 ordinary.

Juvenile: Very similar to adult of L. arctica in

coxa 1, pleonal teeth, and accessory teeth but rostrum much longer than in L. arctica.

REMARKS.—On the basis of the elongate rostrum

this subspecies is raised to full rank despite juvenal

similarities to L. arctica.

DISTRIBUTION.—Baja California, 1205-2667 m.

Lepechinella uchu, new species

FlCURES 11, 12

DIAGNOSIS.—All dorsal teeth about half length of

coxa 2, pereonite 1 with one tooth, pereonite 2 to
26 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

R3

FIGURE W.—Lepechinella uchu, new species, holotype, male, 7.6 mm, Vema 15-53;

w=Lfemale, 8.5 mm.
NUMBER 133 27

01

FIGURE \2.—Lepechinella uchu, new species, holotype, male, 7.6 mm, Veina 15—53; w^female,

8.5 mm; v = juvenile, 3.1 mm, Vema 15-49.

pleonite 4 also with one tooth, no accessory teeth;

body covered with thin setae; epimera 1—3 posteriorly convex, each with medium and sharp tooth

posteroventrally, no facial rows of setae; rostrum

thin, slightly curved, extending along 33 percent

of article 1 on antenna 1, first cephalic tooth as

long as rostrum, second tooth less than half as long

as rostrum; mandibular palp article 3 nearly 3

times as long as article 1, article 2 twice as long

as article 3; coxa 1 bifid nearly half its length, coxa

2 shorter than coxa 1, also deeply and slightly bifid

asymmetrically, coxa 3 asymmetrically bifid, pos-
28

SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

terior limb half length of anterior limb, coxa 4

evenly, strongly and sharply bifid, coxa 5 with anterior lobe similar to one limb of coxa 4, posterior

lobe forming small nodule, coxa 6 with weak and

rounded anteroventral limb, sharply extended posteroventral angle, coxa 7 with sharp and strongly

extended posteroventral angle; accessory flagellum

elongate, 1-articulate; telson cleft about 63 percent

its length, each lobe with one long apical spine and

one long seta, apposing margins of lobes nearly

straight; uropod 1 with immensely large and thick

outer ramus, inner ramus only one-fifth as long

as outer ramus, very thin; uropod 2 exceptionally

small, inner ramus extending 33 percent along

outer ramus; inner ramus of uropod 3 extending

about 80 percent along outer ramus.

DESCRIPTION.—Mouthparts generally like those

shown for Lepechinella occlo, new species, but upper lip more deeply and asymmetrically notched,

mandible similar but palpar proportions as in diagnosis and article 3 with two apical setae and three

subapical setae, mandibular lobes of lower lip

stouter, inner plate of maxilla 1 with two setae,

outer with ten spines, right palp apex with eight

stout spines and one thin facial spine, left palp

apex with seven thin spines and one thin facial

spine, inner plate of maxilla 2 thin like that of L.

raua, new species, inner plate of maxilliped thinner

and curved, outer as illustrated; gills heavily folded

basally. Largest specimen, female, 8.5 mm.

Medium-sized individual, 5.6 mm, sex unknown,

Vema 15-19: First cephalic tooth as long as rostrum,

length ratios of outer and inner rami of uropods as

follows: uropod 1 = 85:13, uropod 2 = 32:9, uropod 3 = 17:37.

Juvenile, 3.1 mm, Vema 15-49: First cephalic

tooth twiice as long as rostrum, latter short, second

cephalic tooth about 75 percent as long as first;

article 6 of gnathopods 1-2 lacking posterior setae;

inner rami of all uropods relatively shorter than

in adult; urosomite 1 lacking ventral spine shown

for adult.

HOLOTYPE.—AMNH, male, 7.6 mm.

TYPE-LOCALITY.— Vema 15-53, off Pacific Costa

Rica, 09°23'N, 89°32'W, 3545 m, 23 November

1958.

MATERIAL.- Vema 15-49 (2), 15-53 (2).

DisTRiBiTioN.-Pacific Costa Rica, 3545-3563 m.

Lepechinella ultraabyssalis Birstein and

Vinogradova

Lepechinella ultraabyssalis Birstein and Vinogradova, 1960:

156-159 figs. 7, 8.

DIAGNOSIS.—Pereonal teeth rudimentary, pereonite 1 with two vague humps, pereonites 2-4 with

stronger hump, pereonite 5 to pleonite 4 with small

to medium, sharp tooth, no accessory teeth; body

with sparse dorsal setae; epimera 1—3 posteriorly

convex, posteroventral tooth small, sharp, projecting, epimera with facial setae but no setal rows;

rostrum straight, subconical, basally thick, extending about 40 percent along article 1 of antenna 1,

first cephalic tooth about 67 percent as long as

rostrum, second tooth slightly smaller than first;

mandibular palp article 3 nearly 4 times as long as

article 1, article 2 only 1.5 times as long as article

3; anterior coxae short and broad, coxa 1 slippershaped, not bifid, anterior extension narrow, coxa

2 broad basally, then abruptly narrowed to point,

coxa 3 nearly rectangular, with weak anteroventral

point and slightly concave ventral margin, coxae

4-5 weakly bifid, points sharp, coxa 6 with anteroventral point similar to coxae 4—5, rounded posteroventrally, coxa 7 weakly bifid, both limbs rounded;

accessory flagellum "small, 1—articulate"; telson

deft only 40 percent its length, each lobe with long

apical spine seta; inner ramus of uropod 1 reaching 67 percent along outer ramus; inner ramus of

uropods 2-3 scarcely shorter than outer ramus.

DISTRIBUTION.—Pacific Japan, 6475-6571 m.

Lepechinella wolffi Dahl

Lepechinella wolffi Dahl, 1959:237-238, fig. 19.

DIAGNOSIS.—Anterior dorsal teeth about 1.5 times

as long as coxa 2, posterior teeth only as long as

coxa 2, pereonite- 1 with two teeth fused at base,

pereonite 2 to pleonite 4 with one main tooth, accessory teeth as follows: pereonite 2 with hump,

3—4 with pair of small thin teeth, 5 with triad, 6

with tetrad, 7 with sextet but small, spinelike, pleonite 1 with numerous tiny spines on humps in rows

dorsally, pleonites 2—3 with spines in dorsal rows,

pleonite 1 lacking dorsal ornament; body with

sparse dorsal setae besides special spines in dorsal

rows; epimera 1-3 with slightly concave posterior

margins, posteroventral corners more or less extended, corner rounded on epimeron 1, sharp on
NUMBER 133 29

epimera 2-3, epimeron 2 lacking facial setae; rostrum very short, suberect, thick, first cephalic tooth

very long and thin, extending 75 percent along

article 1 of antenna 1, second tooth thick, as short

as rostrum; mandibular palp like that of L. curvispinosa, L. echinata, and L. chrysotheras: coxa 1

slipper-shaped, thinly extended anteriorly, not bifid, coxa 2 thin, not bifid, coxa 3 slightly bifid, anterior limb sharp, posterior limb shallow and

rounded, coxa 4 weakly bifid, each limb shallow

and rounded, coxa 5 with anterior lobe like lobes

on coxa 4, coxa (> with weak, rounded anterior

lobe, rounded posteroventrally, coxa 7 weakly bifid,

rounded softly at both corners; accessory flagellum

"short and rod-like"; telson "deeply cleft with lobes

somewhat diverging"; inner rami of uropods 1-3

scarcely shorter than outer rami.

DISTRIBUTION.—Kermadec Trench, 6660-6770 m.

Literature Cited

Barnard, J. L.

1957. New Bathypelagic Amphipods of the Genera

Rhacliotropis and Lepechinella with Keys to the

Genera. Bulletin Southern California Academy of

Sciences, 56:14-20, plates 3-5.

1961. Gammaridean Amphipoda from Depths of 400 to

fiOOO Meters. In Galathea Report, 5:23-128, figures

1-83.

1962. South Atlantic Abyssal Amphipods Collected by

R. V. Veina. In Abyssal Crustacea, Vema Research

Series, 1:1-78, figures 1-79.

1967. Bathyal and Abyssal Gammaridean Amphipoda of

Cedros Trench, Baja California. United States National Museum Bulletin, 260:1-205, figures 1-92.

1969. The Families and Genera of Marine Gammaridean

Amphipoda. United States National Museum Bulletin, 271:1-535, figures 1-173.

1970. The Identity of Dexamonica and Prinassus with a

Revision of Dexaminidae (Amphipoda) . Crustaceana, 19:161-180, figures 1-5.

Barnard, K. H.

1925. Contributions to the Crustacean Fauna of South

Africa.— No. 8. Further Additions to the List of

Amphipoda. Annals South African Museum, 20:319-

380, plate 34.

1932. Amphipoda. In Discovery Reports, 5:1-326, figures

1-174, plate 1.

Birstein, Ja. A., and N. G. Vinogradova

I960. Donnye Ultraabissal'nye Gammaridy Severo-zapadnoi Chasti Tixogo Okeana. I. Semeistva Liljeborgiidae, Astyridae, Lepechinellidae, Gammaridae.

Akademija Nauk SSSR, Trudy Instituta Okeanologije, 34:147-164, figures 1-10.

Chevreux, E.

1914. Diagnoses d'Amphipodes Nouveaux Provenant des

Campagnes de la Princesse-Alice dans l'Atlantique

nord. Bulletin de L'lnstitut Oce'anographique,

Monaco, 296:1-4, 3 figures.

Dahl, E.

1959. Amphipoda from Depths Exceeding 6000 Meters.

In Galathea Report, 1:211-240, figures 1-20.

Knequist, P.

1950. Studies on the Soft-Bottom Amphipods of the

Skagerak. Zoologiska Bidrag fran Uppsala, 28:297-

492, figures 1-67.

Gurjanova, E.

1951. Bokoplavy Morei SSSR i Sopredel'nyx Vod (Amphipoda-Gammaridea). Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR,

41:1-1031, figures 1-705.

Nicholls, G. E.

1938. Amphipoda Gammaridea. In Australasian Antarctic Exped. 1911-14. Scientific Reports. Series CZoology and Botany, 2(4): 1-145, figures 1-67.

Pirlot, J. M.

1933. Les Ainphipodes de l'Expedition du Siboga. Deuxieme Partie. Les Amphipodes Gammarides II—. . .

Lepechinellidae). In Siboga Expeditie, 33c: 115—167,

figures 35—60.

Schellenberg, A.

1925. Die Gammariden Spitzbergens nebst einer Uebersicht der von Rotncr & Schaudinn 1898 im Nordlichen Eismeer Gesammelten Arten. Mittheilungen

Zoologische Museum in Berlin, 11:195-231, figures

1-10.

1926. Die Gammariden der Deutschen Siidpolar-Expedition 1901-1903. In Deutsch Siidpolar-Expedition, 18:

235-414, figures 1-68.

Skogsberg, T., and G. H. Vansell

1928. Structure and Behavior of the Amphipod, Polycheria osborni. Proceedings California Academy of

Sciences, series 4, 17:267-295, figures 1-26.

Stebbing, T. R. R.

1908. On Two New Species of Northern Amphipoda.

Journal Linnean Society London, Zoology, 30:191-

197, plates 27, 28.

Stephensen, K.

1944. Crustacea Malacostraca VIII (Amphipoda IV). In

Danish Ingolf-Expedition, 3(13): 1-51, figures 1-38.

Appendix: Sample Data

Vema samples, Lamont Geological Observatory, Palisades,

New York:

14-38: 20°WS, 56°23.5'E, 1421-1750 m, 7 May 1958.

14-49: 35°46'N, 23°28'E, 843 m, 7 October 1958.
30 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY

15-23: 09°46.3'N, 79°37.5'W, 566-811 m, 10 November 1958. 72: 31°0G.5\S, 71°48.5'VV, 480-510 fms, 24 June 1962.

15-35: O7°3O'N, 79°16'W, 2234 m, 14 November 1958. 112: 56°02'S, 61°56'W, 4008 in, 20 July 1962.

15-49: 09°24'N, 89°27'W, 3563 m, 22 November 1958. 350: 55°00'S, 58°57'W, 2452 m, 4 December 1962.

15-53: 09<23'N, 89°32'W, 3545 m, 23 November 1958. , Ne w Zea , a n d Oteanographi c Institute > Wel15-118: 55°44.2'S, 64°11.5'W, 3777 m, 16 March 1959. lineton15-119: 57°04'S, 61°25'W, 3987 m, 17 March 1959. '

E417: 45°12'S, 171°49'E, 860 m, 13 October 1965.

Eltanin samples, National Science Foundation, Data stored E7O9: 40°28'S, 177°43'E, 1642-1683 m, 21 March 1967.

in Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting Center, Washington, F753: 44°45'S, 174 °30'E, 854-788 m, 18 August 1966.

D.C. F755: 43°OO'S, 174°30'E, 721 m, 19 August 1966.
Index

aberrantis, Atylus, 2, 7

Lepechinella, 2, 7

arctica, Lepechinella, 3, 4, 10, 17, 25

Atylus, 1, 2, 3

aberrantis, 2, 7

auca, Lepechinella, 10

bierii, Lepechinella, 12

cachi, Lepechinella, 12

cetrata, Lepechinella, 12, 14

chrysotheras, Lepechinella, 3, 5, 14

cura, Lepechinella, 14,

curvispinosa, Lepechinella, 16

Dorbanella, 5

echinata, 16

spez., 10

drygalskii, Lepechinella, 16

echinata, Dorbanella, 16

Lepechinella, 16, 19

eupraxiella, Lepechinella, 3, 17

huaco, Lepechinella, 17

Lepechinella, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

aberrantis, 2, 7

arctica, 3, 4, 10, 17, 25

auca, 10

bierii, 12

cachi, 12

cetrata, 12, 14

chrysotheras, 3, 5, 14

cura, 14

curvispinosa, 16

drygalskii, 16

echinata, 16, 19

eupraxiella, 3, 17

huaco, 17

manco, 19

monocuspidata, 19

occlo, 21

pangloa, 12, 21

raua, 21

schellenbergi, 10

sucia, 25

turpis, 3, 4, 25

iichu, 25

ultraabyssalis, 10, 12, 28

wolffi, 28

manco, Lepechinella, 19

monocuspidata, Lepechinella, 19

occlo, Lepechinella, 21

osborni, Polycheria, 3

Paradexamine, 2

Paralepechinella, 1, 2

pangola, Lepechinella, 12, 21

Polycheria osborni, 3

raua, Lepechinella, 21

schellenbergi, Lepechinella, 10

sucia, Lepechinella, 25

Syndexamine, 2

turpis, Lepechinella, 3, 4, 25

uchu, Lepechinella, 25

llschakoviella, 3

ultraabyssalis, Lepechinella, 10, 12, 28

wolffi, Lepechinella, 28

•it U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1*73 484-322/38

31

Publication in Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology

Manuscripts for serial publications are accepted by the Smithsonian Institution Press, subject to substantive review, only through departments of the various Smithsonian museums. NonSmithsonian authors should address inquiries to the appropriate department. If submission is

invited, the following format requirements of the Press will govern the preparation of copy.

Copy must be typewritten, double-spaced, on one side of standard white bond paper, with

W'i" top and left margins, submitted in ribbon copy with a carbon or duplicate, and accompanied by the original artwork. Duplicate copies of all material, including illustrations, should be

retained by the author. There may be several paragraphs to a page, but each page should begin

with a new paragraph. Number consecutively all pages, including title page, abstract, text, literature cited, legends, and tables. The minimum length is 30 pages, including typescript and illustrations.

The title should be complete and clear for easy indexing by abstracting services. Taxonomic

titles will carry a final line indicating the higher categories to which the taxon is referable:

"(Hymenoptera: Sphecidae)." Include an abstract as an introductory part of the text. Identify

the author on the first page of text with an unnumbered footnote that includes his professional

mailing address. A table of contents is optional. An index, if required, may be supplied by the

author when he returns page proof.

Two headings are used: (1) text heads (boldface in print) for major sections and chapters and (2) paragraph sideheads (caps and small caps in print) for subdivisions. Further

headings may be worked out with the editor.

In taxonomic keys, number only the first item of each couplet; if there is only one couplet,

omit the number. For easy reference, number also the taxa and their corresponding headings

throughout the text; do not incorporate page references in the key.

In synonymy, use the short form (taxon, author, date:page) with a full reference at the

end of the paper under "Literature Cited." Begin each taxon at the left margin with subsequent lines indented about three spaces. Within an entry, use a period-dash (.—) to separate

each reference. Enclose with square brackets any annotation in, or at the end of, the entry.

For references within the text, use the author-date system: "(Jones, 1910)" and "Jones

(1910)." If the reference is expanded, abbreviate the data: "Jones (1910:122, pi. 20: fig. 1)."

Simple tabulations in the text (e.g., columns of data) may carry headings or not, but they

should not contain rules. Formal tables must be submitted as pages separate from the text, and

each table, no matter how large, should be pasted up as a single sheet of copy.

Use the metric system instead of, or in addition to, the English system.

Illustrations (line drawings, maps, photographs, shaded drawings) can be intermixed

throughout the printed text. They will be termed Figures and should be numbered consecutively ; however, if a group of figures is treated as a single figure, the components should be

indicated by lowercase italic letters on the illustration, in the legend, and in text references:

"Figure 9b." If illustrations (usually tone photographs) are printed separately from the text as

full pages on a different stock of paper, they will be termed Plates, and individual components

should be lettered (Plate 9b) but may be numbered (Plate 9: figure 2). Never combine the

numbering system of text illustrations with that of plate illustrations. Submit all legends on

pages separate from the text and not attached to the artwork. An instruction booklet for the

preparation of illustrations is available from the Press on request.

In the bibliography (usually called "Literature Cited"), spell out book, journal, and

article titles, using initial caps with all words except minor terms such as "and, of, the." For

capitalization of titles in foreign languages, follow the national practice of each language.

Underscore (for italics) book and journal titles. Use the colon-parentheses system for volume,

number, and page citations: "10(2) :5-9." Spell out such words as "figures," "plates,"" "pages."

For free copies of his own paper, a Smithsonian author should indicate his requirements

on "Form 36" (submitted to the Press with the manuscript). A non-Smithsonian author will

receive 50 free copies, order forms for quantities above this amount with instructions for payment will bo supplied when page proof is forwarded.
K

1

•

"iHr

^ ^MBI