. Fig. 31. Palinwellus}, \"] mm. Dorsal view of head region. 426 DISCOVERY REPORTS Fore-body about as wide as long, with a small but perfectly distinct sharp-pointed rostrum (Fig. 31). Hind-body much narrower than fore-body, not hollowed behind. Abdomen small, distinctly segmented, with bilobed uropods but no pleopods. Antennules with peduncle of two segments, endopod distinct. Antennae with basal part distinct from flagellum and produced outwards into a strong spine. Flagellum nearly reaching end of antennule. Maxillule with small papilliform palp. Maxilla with exopod large, extending be
. Fig. 31. Palinwellus}, \"] mm. Dorsal view of head region. 426 DISCOVERY REPORTS Fore-body about as wide as long, with a small but perfectly distinct sharp-pointed rostrum (Fig. 31). Hind-body much narrower than fore-body, not hollowed behind. Abdomen small, distinctly segmented, with bilobed uropods but no pleopods. Antennules with peduncle of two segments, endopod distinct. Antennae with basal part distinct from flagellum and produced outwards into a strong spine. Flagellum nearly reaching end of antennule. Maxillule with small papilliform palp. Maxilla with exopod large, extending behind maxillipede 2, and fringed with setae. Maxillipede i a small papilla. Maxillipede 2 with exopod of fair size but without setae. Maxillipede 3 having large setose exopod. Dactyli of legs short and curved; each leg with coxal spine and a group of spines at end of merus. Leg 5 about twice as long as abdomen, segmented, with large rudiment of exopod. It is unfortunate that only one specimen, and that a young one, of this Phyllosoma is available, since it is a very remarkable form and the last stage might give some clue to its identity. It is unique in having a well-marked rostrum, and the presence of an exopod on leg 5 is another character which is unusual, and perhaps primitive. The form of the maxillae, presence of exopods on maxillipedes 2 and 3, and presence of a palp on the maxillule, point with certainty to the Palinuridae, and probably to near relationship to Palimirus; but it obviously does not belong to Palinurus nor Pamdirus. There is a general resemblance to a Phyllosoma described by Santucci (1929) from the Red Sea, and regarded by him as probably belonging to Scyllarides latus, but Santucci does not show a palp on the maxillule and does not mention a rostrum. It is fair to assume that the adult must be a genus possessing a rostrum,^ which excludes Linupanis and, perhaps, Paliniistiis. There remain only Polinurellus and Puerulus. There is no means whatever for deci
Size: 2649px × 1887px
Photo credit: © The Bookworm Collection / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, booksubjectocean, booksubjectscientificexpediti
