taxonID	type	description	language	source
3E6B7221CD08FF998AA1FC5AFE7B99AA.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Sexual dimorphism of pereon sometimes very pronounced (spherically bulging) in females of some species due to enlarged pereonites 1 – 4 (5). Pereon of males only marginally inflated, or slender. Eyes very small, or absent. Mandibles with narrow incisor; lacinia mobilis well-developed, or absent (Scinidae); palp absent, or reduced to one article (Pseudomimonectes). Maxilliped with inner lobes separate, or partly so, or completely fused (Scina, Spinoscina), or absent (Acanthoscina, Ctenoscina). Gnathopods simple, rarely with postero-distal excavation of propodus. Pereopods simple, rarely with retractile dactyls (Microscinidae fam. nov.), or only P 5 – 7 with retractile dactyls (Mimoscinidae fam. nov.). Four families: Scinidae, Mimonectidae, Mimoscinidae fam. nov. and Microscinidae fam. nov. (Proscinidae excluded).	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD08FF998AA1FC5AFE7B99AA.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The superfamily Scinoidea was proposed by Bowman and Gruner (1973) to replace the old subtribe name Sciniformata, proposed by Stephensen and Pirlot (1931) to encompass the families Archaeoscinidae, Mimonectidae, Proscinidae and Scinidae. Subsequently, Vinogradov et al. (1982) removed Archaeoscinidae from this group and proposed a new superfamily, Achaeoscinoidea, to accommodate it because it possessed characters not found in either of the then recognised superfamilies, Lanceoloidea and Scinoidea, in the infraorder Physosomata (see Zeidler 2006). Although the remaining families are united by a combination of several characters, as in the diagnosis above, it is a relatively morphologically diverse group, with some members sharing characters with the other two superfamilies in the infraorder. It differs primarily from Archaeoscinidae and Lanceoloidea in that the mandibles lack a palp (except onearticulate in Pseudomimonectes but also absent in Chuneolidae). However, some species exhibit the extreme sexual dimorphism found in mature females of Archaeoscina, and some species have pereopods with retractile dactyls as found in some Lanceoloidea.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD0AFF9B8AA1FDB0FE1D9C5A.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Parascina stephenseni Pirlot, 1929. Designated by Stephensen and Pirlot (1931). Five nominal species.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD0AFF958AA1FC88FB8798E2.taxon	description	(Fig. 1)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD0AFF958AA1FC88FB8798E2.taxon	description	Hendrycks 1996: 591, 595, 596 (key), 599 (table), 600. non — Gasca et al. 2006: 239 (table), fig. 3 e (here re-determined as Mimonectes sphaericus) non — Mori et al. 2010: 4 (list), 8 (list) (see remarks).	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD0AFF958AA1FC88FB8798E2.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. This species was described from one immature female, measuring about 5 mm, from the North Atlantic (47 ° 10 ’ N 18 ° 02 ’ W); Armauer Hansen stn. 43, 2240 mw, 26 June 1922. The unique holotype is in the Aquarium-Muséum de l’Université de Liège, Belgium (RE 11979). Material examined. The specimens recorded by Barnard (1937), Gasca et al. (2006) and Mori et al. (2010), as detailed under remarks.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD0AFF958AA1FC88FB8798E2.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. According to Pirlot (1929) and Stephensen & Pirlot (1931). Pereon not inflated. Antennae 1 slightly shorter than pereon; relatively robust; callynophore with numerous, long aesthetascs. Antennae 2 reduced to two small, rounded articles. Gnathopod 1; basis relatively short, length 0.7 x remaining articles combined, 1.4 x carpus; propodus and carpus of similar length; propodus with numerous, long setae on anterior margin, distal corners produced slightly on either side of dactyl; dactyl thin, length 0.3 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 similar in length to G 1 but more slender; basis length 1.8 x carpus; propodus length 1.5 x carpus, armed with few long setae on both margins; dactyl like that of G 1. Pereopoda all relatively slender. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure, with P 4 slightly longer; carpus much longer than merus but slightly shorter than propodus; dactyl a curved nail. Pereopod 5 slightly longer than P 4; basis length 1.4 x merus; merus, carpus and propodus of similar length, with few setae, mainly on posterior margin; dactyl thin, very short. Pereopod 6 marginally shorter than P 5; basis length about 1.5 x merus; carpus and propodus of similar length, marginally shorter than merus; dactyl like that of P 5. Pereopod 7 marginally longer than P 6, but all articles of similar structure and relative lengths. Uropoda with slender, relatively long, lanceolate rami, with serrated margins; all with inner ramus distinctly longer than outer, and much longer than peduncle, especially U 1 & 2. Uropod 1; inner ramus length 1.6 x outer, about twice peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.6 x outer, and 1.8 x peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length 1.2 x outer, and 1.7 x peduncle; peduncle width 0.4 x length. Telson with relatively blunt apex, slightly longer than broad, length about half peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimens.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD0AFF958AA1FC88FB8798E2.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Characteristic features of the type are the slender gnathopods and uropoda. In addition, the callynophore of the first antennae is furnished with numerous, long aesthetascs, a character usually associated with mature males, but the type is clearly a female with poorly-developed oostegites, as illustrated by Pirlot (1929) and Stephensen and Pirlot (1931). The propodus of gnathopod 1 is armed with long setae on the anterior margin, a character found in some males of Mimonectes, and the distal corners are produced slightly on either side of the dactyl. In this respect it resembles Mimonectes gaussi (Woltereck, 1904), but in that species the projections are much more prominent, the pereopoda articles are of a different structure, and the uropoda have relatively short, wide peduncles and rami. The only other species with projections on the propodus of gnathopod 1, apart from Mimonectes diomedeae (Woltereck, 1909), which is similar to M. gaussi, is Mimonectes alexanderi sp. nov., but in that species the projection is only on the postero-distal corner, and the pereopods and uropoda are of a different structure. Thus, P. stephenseni would seem to be a valid species, and is here transferred to the genus Mimonectes. In addition to the type there are five literature records of specimens as follows. 1. Barnard 1937: 179 – 180, fig. 21. One male, about 5.4 mm, (NHM 1938.1.3.238); Southern Arabian Sea, near the Seychelles, John Murray stn. 131, 0 – 1500 m, 11 February 1934. I have examined this specimen (Fig. 2) but have been unable to determine its specific status with confidence. It seems to be mature, judging by the numerous aesthetascs on the first antennae and the well-developed second antennae and genital papillae. The specimen is in poor condition with the appendages missing from the right side, the urosome is badly damaged, and the buccal mass is also missing. The first antennae are relatively large and inserted near the ventral surface of the head, more so than in species of Mimonectes, contrary to one of the characters used to separate Proscina from Mimonectes. It differs from the type (female) of P. stephenseni in the following characters, still discernible from the specimen, although some of these differences may be due to sexual dimorphism. Gnathopod 1; propodus lacks small projections on distal corners, adjacent to dactyl. Gnathopod 2; propodus relatively longer and broader, with slight, but distinct, postero-distal excavation. Pereopod 5; propodus is slightly shorter than carpus. Pereopod 7; merus is distinctly shorter than carpus (about half); in the type it is clearly longer than the carpus or propodus. Uropod 3; peduncle is relatively wide, about 0.6 x length compared to 0.4 x in the type. The habitus is most similar to the three new species of Mimonectes described here, but the cuticle does not seem to be as thick, or opaque, and the pereon is without any discernible furrows; all of which may be because of its poorly preserved state. However, males of all of the three new species, which seem to be mature, and of a similar size to the present specimen, have the second antennae very much reduced. Of the three, it is most similar to M. neosphaericus sp. nov., except that the first antennae are about as long as the pereon and pleon combined, gnathopod 1 is simple, without pairs of strong setae on the palm, the peduncle of uropod 3 is relatively broader, and the telson is relatively shorter. The tiny outer ramus and odd rounded inner ramus of uropod three may be due to regeneration. Thus, in view of the above, and considering its poor state of preservation, this specimen must be regarded as undeterminable, pending the discovery of more material of this, and allied, species. 2. Vinogradov 1957: 208 – 209, fig. 13. One female, 10 mm and one male, 9 mm, from the north-west Pacific, near the Kurile Islands (44 ° 07 ’ N 150 ° 32 ’ E); Vityaz, 0 – 3000 m and 0 – 2000 m respectively. I have been unable to gain access to these specimens, but the illustrations provided by Vinogradov (1957) indicate that they are most likely Mimonectes sphaericus. The characters of the gnathopods and urosome, as illustrated, are typical of M. sphaericus and unlike the type of P. stephenseni, which has more slender uropoda, gnathopod 2 is very slender and simple, and gnathopod 1 has the distal corners of the propodus produced slightly on either side of the dactyl. Shih & Hendrycks (1996) suggest that these specimens might represent their new species, P. vinogradovi, which is also very similar to M. sphaericus. 3. Shih & Hendrycks 1996: 591, 595, 596 (key), 599 (table), 600. It is not clear if the authors actually examined any specimens of this species, but in the table are listed records for the Atlantic (36 ° 17 ’ N 28 ° 53 W) (type locality for P. magna) and the Arctic (85 ° 53.5 ’ N 136 ° 47 ’ W to 80 ° 34 ’ N 136 ° 50 ’ W), 300 – 900 m. However, no information is provided regarding how these records were obtained, whether or not specimens were examined, the sex and number of specimens, or their current depository, and the Canadian Museum of Nature could not provide any information regarding these records (Hendrycks pers. com.). 4. Gasca et al. 2006: 239 (table), fig. 3 e. One immature female, 8.0 mm, from the north-east Pacific, Monterey Canyon, California (36 ° 68.5 ’ N 122 ° 06.3 ’ W), ROV dive 843, 392 m, on the siphonophore Nectadamus diomedeae (Prayidae). I have examined this specimen and have re-determined it as Mimonectes sphaericus; all characters being consistent with that species. This error in identification, and perhaps others, may have occurred as a result of following the record and illustrations of Vinogradov (1957) of specimens which are most likely M. sphaericus. 5. Mori et al. (2010), record this species from Sagami Bay and off Oshima, Japan. I have examined some of these specimens, from Sagami Bay, and three belong to the gammaridean family Stegocephalidae, one is M. gaussi and one is M. alexanderi sp. nov. Thus, this record should be ignored.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD0AFF958AA1FC88FB8798E2.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known only from the type locality and the south-western Indian Ocean (Barnard 1937) as detailed above; the records of Shih & Hendrycks (1996) remaining unconfirmed.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD07FF978AA1F93AFDD79C62.taxon	description	(Fig. 3)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD07FF978AA1F93AFDD79C62.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. This species was described from a mature female measuring about 20 mm, from the south-eastern Indian Ocean (30 ° 06 ’ S 87 ° 50 ’ E); Valdivia stn. 172, 1850 – 1600 m, 9 January 1899. The unique type could not be found in the MFN or USNM and is considered lost.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD07FF978AA1F93AFDD79C62.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Woltereck’s (1906) description of this species is inadequate, and his figure of the type schematic. The gnathopods seem to be simple, and pereopods 3 & 4 are illustrated in reverse, but the merus is not particularly short, and the dactyls seem to be small. Of pereopod 5 he says that the basis has a distal spine, similar to Scina, but this is not illustrated. Pereopod 6 seems to be missing, and both pereopods 5 & 7 are incomplete, but seem to be very slender, unlike any other species, except for Mimoscina. Woltereck does not mention the state of the dactyls probably because the distal articles are missing. Having considered Woltereck’s inadequate description and figure of this species, and in view of the lack of type material, it is very difficult to characterise this species, but I consider it to be a species of Mimoscina, based on the very slender and probably elongate pereopods 5 & 7. Pirlot (1933) also compared this species with his Mimoscina gracilipes. The only other record of this species is by Vinogradov (1964), who records two juvenile specimens (4.5, 4.0 mm) from the tropical Indian Ocean, near the Seychelles, Vitjaz stn. 4630 (03 ° 11 ’ S 64 ° 02 ’ E), 2120 – 3130 m, and Vitjaz stn. 4634 (02 ° 46.8 ’ S 65 ° 41.8 ’ E), 1940 – 3315 m. However, these specimens are clearly not P. scinoides as described by Woltereck (1906) but have characters that match those of Mimonectes spandlii. In particular, the relatively short merus of the pereopods and the long dactyl of pereopods 3 & 4, as illustrated by Vinogradov (1964), are very diagnostic of this species.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD06FF918AA1F993FB419D6C.taxon	description	(Fig. 4)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD06FF918AA1F993FB419D6C.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. This species was described from a male measuring about 9 mm, from the North Atlantic, southwest of the Azores (36 ° 17 ’ N 28 ° 53 ’ W); Princesse Alice II, stn. 1851, 0 – 3000 m, 8 September 1904. The unique holotype is in the MOM (3721 30).	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD06FF918AA1F993FB419D6C.taxon	discussion	Remarks. It is clear from the description and figures of the type by Stephensen & Pirlot (1931) that it resembles Mimonectes loveni Bovallius, 1885 in many respects. The gnathopods are identical and the relatively broader articles of pereopod 5, and the more slender pereopod 6, with relatively smaller dactyls, are also characteristic of M. loveni. The remaining pereopods (P 3, 4 & 7) are illustrated as being slightly more slender than typical specimens of M. loveni, but it should be noted that for this species the pereopods become more slender with maturity. In this respect, the type of P. magna is like the specimens of M. loveni from the south-east Atlantic (Dana stn. 3978 viii), as noted under that species (see later). The mouthparts are also indistinguishable from M. loveni. Although I have been unable to examine the type I am reasonably confident that P. magna is a junior synonym of M. loveni. It should be noted that, until this study, the male of M. loveni has never been illustrated, and was unknown before Stephensen & Pirlot’s (1931) review of the group, and this may account for them not recognising their specimen as M. loveni. There are only three additional literature records of P. magna as follows. 1. Vinogradov (1957) records a female (18 mm) from the north-west Pacific, Kurile Trench (30 ° 52 ’ N 153 ° 16 ’ E); Vityaz stn., 0 – 5500 m. The characters of this specimen, as figured, are identical to M. loveni and, although I have been unable to examine this specimen, I am confident that it cannot be distinguished from M. loveni. In the past, mature females of Mimonectidae were considered to have a grossly inflated pereon, with those of Proscina having a more slender pereon, similar to males. However, this character is demonstrated here to be erroneous, and females of M. loveni, even at 18 mm, would only have a slightly inflated pereon, not much different from males. Thus, reliance on this character may account for the above error in identification. 2. Thurston (1976) recorded two juveniles (3 & 5 mm) from the north-east Atlantic, near the Canary Islands, which he doubtfully attributed to this species. It is likely that these are also M. loveni. 3. Mori et al. (2010) list records from Sagami Bay and off Kamogawa, Japan. I have examined two of these specimens, from Sagami Bay, and one is M. gaussi and the other is Scypholanceola aestiva. Thus, this record should be ignored.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD00FF928AA1FD9DFB119EF1.taxon	description	(Fig. 5)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD00FF928AA1FD9DFB119EF1.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. This species was described from an immature (?) male, measuring about 6 mm, from the West Bering Sea (60 ° 47 ’ N 175 ° 38 ’ E); Vityaz stn. 591, 1500 – 500 m, 13 September 1950. The unique holotype is in the ZMMU (Mb- 1062).	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD00FF928AA1FD9DFB119EF1.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. According to Vinogradov (1956) and Vinogradov et al. (1982). Known only from the unique holotype male, 6.0 mm. Pereon not inflated. Antennae 1 relative length not recorded. Antennae 2 with distal articles missing, but still longer than half of A 1. Gnathopod 1; basis relatively short, length slightly less than 0.7 x remaining articles combined, about twice carpus; propodus length almost 1.5 x carpus; dactyl relatively strong, length about 0.4 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 marginally longer and more slender than G 1; relative lengths of articles similar to G 1. Pereopods not particularly slender. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in length and structure; basis length twice merus; carpus length 1.6 x merus; propodus length 0.8 x carpus; dactyl a small nail, length 0.2 x propodus. Pereopod 5 marginally shorter than P 3; basis length 1.6 x merus; carpus sub-equal in length to merus; propodus length 0.7 x carpus; dactyl a very short, curved nail. Pereopod 6 similar in length, and relative lengths of articles, to P 5. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 6; basis length almost 2.6 x merus; merus relatively short, only twice length ischium; carpus length 1.4 x merus; propodus as long as merus; dactyl as for P 6. Uropoda not particularly slender or lanceolate; with inner ramus distinctly longer than outer for U 1 & 2, and only marginally longer than peduncle. Uropod 1; inner ramus length 1.6 x outer, and 1.3 x peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length twice outer, marginally longer than peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus marginally longer than outer, and 1.2 x peduncle; peduncle width almost 0.6 x length. Telson slightly broader than long, length about 0.6 x peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimen.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD00FF928AA1FD9DFB119EF1.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species is known only from the unique type. Unfortunately, I have been unable to examine the type, and therefore rely on the figures and description of Vinogradov (1956) to make the following comparisons. In having simple gnathopods, this species must be compared with Mimonectes loveni, M. spandlii and M. colemani sp. nov. It might also be compared with P. stephenseni (here transferred to Mimonectes), but in that species gnathopod 1 has small distal projections on the propodus on either side of the dactyl, the pereopods are more slender, and the uropoda are more lanceolate. It is readily distinguished from M. spandlii by the relatively longer merus of the pereopods, and from M. loveni by the more slender gnathopods, and the similar size and structure of pereopods 5 – 7, with the articles of pereopod 5 not being relatively broader, pereopod 6 is not relatively more slender, and the dactyl is strong, and the merus of pereopod 7 is not relatively as short. The uropoda are also less lanceolate. In the structure of the gnathopods and pereopods it closely resembles M. colemani sp. nov., and I might have considered them synonymous, except that in males of the latter the second antennae are very short, pereopod 3 is much longer than pereopods 4 – 6, and the uropoda are more lanceolate. It might also differ from M. colemani sp. nov. in the habitus and cuticle of males, but this is not described by Vinogradov (1956), although Vinogradov et al. (1982) say, in their diagnosis of the genus Proscina, “ the integument is thin ”. Thus, this species should be considered valid, pending an examination of the type and the availability of more material of this, and related species. It is here transferred to the genus Mimonectes. Mori et al. (2010) list specimens from Sagami Bay, Japan. I have examined some of these specimens and two belong to the gammaridean family Stegocephalidae, and two are Lanceola clausi. Thus, this record should be ignored.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD00FF928AA1FD9DFB119EF1.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known only from the type locality, from the unique type, as detailed above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD02FF8C8AA1FF60FB119A92.taxon	description	(Fig. 6)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD02FF8C8AA1FF60FB119A92.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. This species was described from a sub-adult male, 4.7 mm in length (head to end of inner ramus of U 3), from the North Pacific, off the Alaskan Peninsula (54 ° 40 ’ N 155 ° 10 ’ W); 700 – 900 m, 14 April 1930. The unique holotype is in the USNM (264246); the mouthparts and appendages from the right side, including the telson, are mounted on a microscope slide; the remainder is preserved in alcohol. Material examined. The unique type as detailed above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD02FF8C8AA1FF60FB119A92.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Following examination of the holotype male, 4.7 mm, and according to Shih & Hendrycks (1996). Pereon not inflated. Head rounded dorsally, without rostrum. Antennae 1 as long as head and first four pereonites combined; callynophore lanceolate, with serrated margins and numerous aesthetascs. Antennae 2 slightly shorter than first peduncular article of A 1, consisting of three small articles. Gnathopod 1; basis relatively short, length 0.6 x remaining articles combined, 1.6 x carpus; propodus length about 1.4 x carpus, with numerous long setae on lateral and medial surfaces, especially for distal half; dactyl relatively straight, length about one-third propodus. Gnathopod 2 slightly longer than G 1; basis length twice carpus, similar in length to propodus; propodus slightly expanded medially with distinct postero-distal excavation, forming palm for dactyl, posterior margin and palm armed with several, relatively strong setae; dactyl strong, curved, length slightly more than one-third propodus. Pereopods not particularly slender. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in length and structure; basis length twice merus; carpus length about 1.4 x merus; propodus as long as carpus, with few long setae on antero-distal corner; dactyl relatively strong, curved, length about one-quarter propodus. Pereopod 5 slightly more slender than P 4 but of similar length; basis length twice merus; carpus length 1.3 x merus; propodus as long as carpus, with tuft of long setae on postero-distal corner; dactyl curved, length 0.2 x propodus. Pereopod 6 similar in length to P 5; basis length almost twice merus; carpus length 1.3 x merus; propodus length 0.8 x carpus, armed with setae as for P 5; dactyl as for P 5. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 6; basis length 2.6 x merus; merus relatively short, about 2.5 x ischium; carpus slightly broader than other articles, length marginally more than twice merus; propodus length 0.7 x carpus, armed with setae as for P 6; dactyl as for P 6 but slightly longer. Uropoda with lanceolate rami, with serrated margins; all with inner ramus distinctly longer than outer; both longer than peduncle. Uropod 1; inner ramus length 1.4 x outer, almost twice peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.4 x outer, and 1.6 x peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length 1.3 x outer, and 1.9 x peduncle; peduncle width marginally more than half length. Telson with rounded apex, 1.3 x as long as broad, about half length of peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimen.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD02FF8C8AA1FF60FB119A92.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species resembles Mimonectes sphaericus Bovallius, 1885 in many respects, particularly in regard to the characters listed by Shih & Hendrycks (1996) to distinguish this species from other members of Proscina. Namely, the excavation on the distal margin of the outer lobe of the maxilliped; the propodus of gnathopod 2 is excavate postero-distally and is relatively long, about twice as long as the carpus and as long as the basis; the merus of pereopod 7 is relatively short and the carpus is relatively broader than in other pereopods. It differs primarily from M. sphaericus in having pereopods 3 – 7 with more robust dactyls and with a relatively longer propodus that is not especially tapering distally. With respect to the stronger dactyls, it also resembles Mimonectes neosphaericus sp. nov., but in that species gnathopod 1 is sub-chelate and pereopods 3 & 4, especially pereopod 4, are significantly longer than pereopods 5 – 7. Shih & Hendrycks (1996) also note the similarity of P. vinogradovi to the specimen of P. stephenseni illustrated by Vinogradov (1957), which I believe most likely represents M. sphaericus, as noted previously. Thus, in consideration of the above, the status of P. vinogradovi is questionable but should be maintained pending the availability of more material of this, and related species. It is here transferred to the genus Mimonectes.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD02FF8C8AA1FF60FB119A92.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known only from the type locality, from the unique type, as detailed above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD1DFF8D8AA1F9C0FD969B42.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Sexually mature specimens with body length 7 – 30 mm. Head rarely as long as first pereonite; without rostrum. Eyes very small, or absent. Sexual dimorphism of some species pronounced, with pereon of sexually mature females spherically inflated. Pereon of males only marginally inflated, or slender. Pereonites all separate. Coxae separate from pereonites. Antennae 1 with stout, setose callynophore; with three short terminal articles, sometimes with few large aesthetascs and one long terminal seta; peduncle two-articulate, rarely three-articulate (Pseudomimonectes); rarely as long as head and pereon combined. Antennae 2 reduced in females and immature males; sometimes as long as 0.7 x A 1 in mature males, or also reduced to few articles. Mandibles with welldeveloped lacinia mobilis (left), slightly narrower or wider than incisor; most inferior tooth of incisor strongest and separated from other teeth by large gap, or similar to other teeth and not separated by gap (Cheloscina). Maxillae 1 with broad palp, armed with few setae distally; outer lobe usually with broad distal margin, armed with 4 – 5 strong setae distally; inner lobe usually with broad distal margin, armed with numerous fine setae. Maxillae 2 with relatively slender lobes of similar length; both armed with 2 – 3 strong setae distally. Maxilliped with oval, or semicircular, outer lobes; inner lobes short, rarely exceeding half length outer lobes, sometimes fused proximally. Gnathopods simple or weakly sub-chelate; distal corners of propodus sometimes projected alongside dactyl; propodus sometimes with postero-distal excavation. Pereopods simple; dactyls never retractile or hooded. Urosomite 2 – 3 with partial suture ventrally. Uropoda slender, with articulated rami. Telson length 0.3 – 0.7 x peduncle of U 3, triangular with rounded or pointed apex. Gills on pereonites 2 – 6. Oostegites on pereonites 2 – 5. Three genera: Cheloscina, Mimonectes and Pseudomimonectes.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD1DFF8D8AA1F9C0FD969B42.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The family Mimonectidae was established by Bovallius (1885) to encompass three new species in his new genus Mimonectes; M. loveni, M. sphaericus and M. steenstrupi (= Archaeoscina steenstrupi). Subsequently, Stebbing (1904) added Parascina and Woltereck (1904 a) added Sphaeromimonectes. Later, Woltereck (1906) concluded that Parascina represented a juvenile or male form of his genus, and this is the currently accepted view, and has been confirmed by the examination of the genotype, P. fowleri Stebbing, 1904. The differences between Mimonectes and Sphaeromimonectes, as defined by Woltereck (1904 a, 1927), are based primarily on errors in the description of A. steenstrupi by Bovallius (1885), a species which has since been placed in its own family, Archaeoscinidae. Thus, Stephensen and Pirlot (1931), in a revision of the genera of the family, synonymised the latter with the former and included Parascina in the synonymy. Only one other genus, Pseudomimonectes, has since been added to the family (Vinogradov 1960). It is very similar to Mimonectes, but differs mainly in having mandibles with a one-articulate palp, and first antennae with a three-articulate peduncle. Cheloscina is here included in this family because it possesses characters consistent with the family, similar to Mimonectes, and the status of the family Proscinidae cannot be maintained. The family is distinguished from Scinidae by the structure of pereopod 5, in that the inner ramus of the uropoda is freely articulated with the peduncle, and by the inner lobes of the maxilliped, that are well-developed, and not fused. It is most readily distinguished from Mimoscinidae fam. nov. and Microscinidae fam. nov. by having pereopoda without retractile dactyls.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD1CFF8E8AA1F9F7FE1B9BD6.taxon	description	54. Proscina Stephensen & Pirlot, 1931: 543 – 544. — Pirlot 1932: 23; 1939: 25. Bowman & Gruner 1973: 12. Vinogradov et al. 1982: 122 – 123. New synonymy.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD1CFF8E8AA1F9F7FE1B9BD6.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Mimonectes loveni Bovallius, 1885. Designated by Bowman and Gruner (1973).	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD1CFF8E8AA1F9F7FE1B9BD6.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. As with the characters of the family with the following additions. Cuticle of females thin, translucent. Cuticle of males usually like that of females, but in some species it is relatively thick and opaque, sometimes with furrows. Eyes small, not discernible, or absent. Antennae 1; peduncle two-articulate. Mandibles without palp; lacinia mobilis slightly narrower than incisor; most inferior tooth of incisor strongest, separated from other teeth by large gap. Maxilliped with well-developed outer lobes. Pereopods; dactyls small, straight or curved, sometimes relatively strong, but not falcate (except P 7 of females of M. alexanderi sp. nov.). Uropoda with lanceolate rami. Eleven species. Sexual dimorphism. Apart from the normally expected sexual differences — males lack oostegites, and when mature have well-developed genital papillae on pereonite 7, adjacent to the base of pereopod 7, and often have antennae 1 with numerous aesthetascs — the following sexual dimorphism has been noted. The most obvious differences are found in the three new species described here, where the cuticle of males is relatively thick and opaque, and the habitus is more elongate (scinoid) than in other species, with an anteriorly broadened pereon and broad head. In the other species the cuticle of both sexes is relatively thin and translucent, and juveniles and immature specimens are very similar in habitus. However, as females reach maturity the pereon becomes relatively more inflated and in M. loveni, M. sphaericus and M. spandlii the pereon can become grossly inflated, almost spherical, when ovigerous, similar to that found in Archaeoscina. The first antennae of males are relatively longer, and the second antennae can be almost as long as the first in mature specimens, although they are much reduced in the three new species described here, similar to females. There is considerable variation in the relative lengths of the pereopods. In juveniles the variation between the sexes is less, but in mature specimens pereopods 5 – 7 are generally of similar length in males, whereas in females pereopod 5 is usually much longer than pereopod 6 or 7.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD1CFF8E8AA1F9F7FE1B9BD6.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Species of Mimonectes are similar in gross morphology, taking into account the sexual dimorphism, particularly for immature specimens. The main exception occurs in the males of the three new species described here, which differ from all other species as detailed above. Also, fully mature females of M. loveni, M. sphaericus and M. spandlii have the pereon grossly inflated when ovigerous, unlike other species. The most useful distinguishing characters are the structure of the propodus of the gnathopods, which can be simple, or have posterodistal excavations, or have distal projections over the dactyl, and the structure of the dactyl of the pereopods, which can be weak and relatively thin, or relatively strong. The five species recognised by Vinogradov et al. (1982) are also considered valid in this review. In addition, three new species are described from the Dana collections, and three species, previously in the genus Proscina, are transferred to this genus following a review of the family Proscinidae (see previously). Thus, Mimonectes currently consists of eleven species.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD1EFF868AA1FD60FD1198E1.taxon	description	(Figs. 7 – 11)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD1EFF868AA1FD60FD1198E1.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. Bovallius (1885) gives the type locality as “ the Atlantic ”, but does not specify the sex or number of specimens examined, although he gives a size range of 18 – 28 mm, indicating that he had more than one specimen, and illustrates a mature female. Later (1889) he gives the distribution as “ northern temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic ”. The ZMUC and NRS has several specimens (all females) that date from the time of Bovallius, and that could be considered type material of M. loveni. These are listed by Stephensen and Pirlot (1931), and I have also examined all but one of the thirteen lots enumerated by them. None are labelled as types, which is typical of Bovallius’s material, and only nine are labelled as having been determined by Bovallius. Of these, two are labelled (by Bovallius) as “ Mimonectes sphaericus ”, two as “ Mimonectes steenstrupi ” and two as “ Mimonectes sp ” and must be disregarded as type material. Thus, only three lots remain that are here considered to represent type material of M. loveni. One of these (ZMUC CRU- 7147; spec. 1 of Stephensen & Pirlot), from the tropical Atlantic (02 ° N 25 ° W), is in reasonable condition, although in three pieces and with the mouthparts intact. It is illustrated here (fig. 7) and designated the lectotype. However, the mouthparts illustrated by Bovallius (1885: pl. 1, figs. 3 – 5) could not have come from this specimen. The other two lots, here designated paralectotypes, are in the NRS and consist of one damaged specimen (No. 1345; spec. 4 of Stephensen & Pirlot), from off Barbados (13 ° N 59 ° W), and one lot of dissected bits (No. 1746; spec. 12 of Stephensen & Pirlot), from the North Atlantic (46 ° N 18 ° W), probably the remains of the specimen used by Bovallius to illustrate the mouthparts. Type material of synonyms. The holotype of S. cultricornis is in the MFN (21336). It is a mature female measuring about 20 mm, from the South Atlantic (12 ° 11 ’ S 06 ° 16 ’ W), collected by the Gauss, Deutschen Sud- Polar Expedition, 4 September 1903. I have examined this specimen and it is clearly the same as M. loveni. Parascina chevreuxi was a new name introduced by Pirlot (1929) for some specimens (male) previously determined as Parascina fowleri Stebbing, 1904 (= M. gaussi). Pirlot did not specify type material but refers to Stephensen’s (1918) description and figure of a male specimen of Parascina fowleri. According to Stephensen & Pirlot (1931) “ La forme décrite par STEPHENSEN (1918) est considérée par PIRLOT (1929) comme le type de P. Chevreuxi ”. The specimen in question is in the ZMUC (CRU- 20465), collected by the Thor from south-west of Ireland (50 ° 25 ’ N 12 ° 44 ’ W), Thor stn. 62, 1500 mw, 5 June 1906. I have examined this specimen and confirmed it to be a male (about 7 mm) of M. loveni. The Aquarium-Muséum de l’Université de Liège, Belgium, also has some specimens labelled “ Parascina fowleri ” (RE 11977) and “ Parascina chevreuxi’ (RE 11978) that were most likely examined by Pirlot (1929). The holotype of P. magna is in the MOM (3721 30), as detailed previously. Material examined. Types. Lectotype and paralectotypes of M. loveni (designated here), the holotype of S. cultricornis and the type of Parascina chevreuxi, as detailed above. Other material examined. N. E. Atlantic: Female (ZMUC); south-west of Greenland (58 ° N 28 ° W), “ Olrik ”, 7 June 1852. Female (ZMUC, CRU- 9503); west of Bay of Biscay (46 ° N 18 ° W), “ Hygom ”, 1856. Female (ZMUC); north of the Azores (45 ° N 26 ° W), “ Hygom ”. Female (ZMUC); north of the Azores (43 ° N 23 ° W), “ Hygom ”, 18 April 1857. Three females (ZMUC); between Canary & Cape Verde Islands (25 ° N 23 ° W), “ Hygom ”, 1857. Female (ZMUC); west of Cape Verde Islands (13 ° N 34 ° W), 9 September 1863. Four males (ZMUC); south of Iceland (61 ° 30 ’ N 17 ° 08 ’ W), Thor stn. 183, 1800 mw, 11 July 1904. Male (ZMUC); south-west of Ireland (50 ° 25 ’ N 12 ° 44 ’ W), Thor stn. 62, 1500 mw, 5 June 1906. Female (ZMUC); north of Cape Verde Islands (21 ° 57 ’ N 22 ° 58 ’ W), Dana stn. 1157 V, 5000 mw, 27 October 1921. Male & two males (ZMUC); south-west of Cape Verde Islands (12 ° 11 ’ N 35 ° 49 ’ W), Dana stns. 1165 III & X, 600 & 1000 mw respectively, 9 November 1921. Male (ZMUC); west of Sierra Leone (08 ° 26 ’ N 15 ° 11 ’ W), Dana stn. 4003 VIII, 600 mw, 9 March 1930. Male & juv. female & juv. (ZMUC); off Senegal (13 ° 31 N 18 ° 03 W), Dana stns. 4005 III, VI & VII, 3000, 1000 & 1000 mw respectively, 12 March 1930. Male (ZMUC); off Mauritania (21 ° 40 ’ N 18 ° 00 ’ W), Dana stn. 4008 II, 600 mw, 16 March 1930. Juv., (USNM 1149247); “ E. coast of United States and Bermuda ”, R / V Bache, 1914. N. W. Atlantic: Two females (NRS, No. 1344 & 1345); near Barbados (13 ° N 59 ° W), 1883. S. E. Atlantic: Two males & two females, male (ZMUC); off South Africa (30 ° 15 ’ S 13 ° 15 ’ E), Dana stns. 3978 VII & VIII, 4000 & 3000 mw respectively, 13 February 1930. Female (ZMUC); off South Africa (23 ° 26 ’ S 03 ° 58 ’ E), Dana stn. 3980 X, 2000 mw, 17 February 1930. Female & juv. (ZMUC); near St. Helena (15 ° 41 ’ S 05 ° 50 ’ W), Dana stns. 3996 II & III, 3000 & 2000 mw respectively, 25 February 1930. Juv. male & two females, juv. (ZMUC); north of St. Helena (07 ° S 08 ° 48 ’ W), Dana stns. 3998 VII & VIII, 5000 & 4000 mw respectively, 1 March 1930. Male & two females (ZMUC); north-east of Ascension Island (03 ° 45 ’ S 10 ° 00 ’ W), Dana stns. 3999 I & III, 1000 & 300 mw respectively, 2 March 1930. Female, male, juv. & female, male & female & four females, two males (ZMUC); south of Liberia (00 ° 31 ’ S 11 ° 02 ’ W), Dana stns. 4000 VII, IX, X & XI, 5000, 3000, 3000 & 1000 mw respectively, 4 March 1930. N. E. Pacific: Juv. male (ZMUC); Gulf of Panama (06 ° 48 ’ N 80 ° 33 ’ W), Dana stn. 1208 VI, 2500 mw, 16 June 1922. Female (ZMUC); near the Galapagos Islands (02 ° 52 ’ N 87 ° 38 ’ W), Dana stn. 3556 II, 2000 mw, 14 September 1928. Male (SAMA, C 6865); (41 ° 1.2 ’ N 164 ° 58.3 ’ W), 1200 m, ex. M. Galbraith, 30 June 1997. Juv. female (SAMA C 6866); south-west of Vancouver Island (48 ° 0.77 ’ N 126 ° 17.42 ’ W), 1000 – 600 m, ex. M. Galbraith, 18 September 2006. Male (SAMA C 6867); west of southern tip of Moresby Island, B. C. (51 ° 36 ’ N 133 ° 51 ’ W), 250 m, ex. M. Galbraith, 4 June 2007. Male (SAMA C 6868); off Queen Charlotte Island (52 ° 29 ’ N 138 ° 44 ’ W), 1500 – 1000 m, ex. M. Galbraith, 28 September 2001. N. W. Pacific: Juv. (SAMA C 7573, ex. JAMSTEC); Sagami Bay, Japan (34 ° 41 ’ N 139 ° 49 ’ E), R / V Kaiyo stn. IO 60325 A- 2 (cruise 06 – 03), 300 – 350 m, col. D. J. Lindsay, 25 March 2006. Female (SAMA C 6869, ex. JAMSTEC); Japan Trench (41 ° 00.5 ’ N 144 ° 41.5 ’ E), 566 m, ROV HyperDolphin dive 99, 23 April 2002. Female (SAMA C 6870, ex. JAMSTEC); Japan Trench (38 ° 20.04 ’ N 143 ° 55.03 ’ E), 780 m, ROV HyperDolphin dive 83, 29 April 2002. S. E. Pacific: Male & squashed spec. (ZMUC); south-east of Panama (00 ° 18 ’ S 99 ° 07 ’ W), Dana stns. 3558 II & III, 2000 mw, 18 September 1928. Female & two juv. (ZMUC); south-east of Galapagos Islands (04 ° 20 ’ S 116 ° 46 ’ W), Dana stns. 3561 III & IV, 3000 & 2000 mw respectively, 24 September 1928. S. W. Pacific: Male (ZMUC); near Fiji (17 ° 27 ’ S 179 ° 33 ’ E), Dana stn. 3593 II, 2700 mw, 10 November 1928. Female (ZMUC); west of Kermadec Islands (27 ° 00 ’ S 177 ° 41 ’ W), Dana stn. 3626 VIII, 1500 m, 13 December 1928. Two males & male (ZMUC); north of New Zealand (30 ° 08 ’ S 176 ° 50 ’ E), Dana stns. 3627 II & IV, 4000 & 2000 mw respectively, 14 December 1928. Two males (ZMUC); east of New Zealand (41 ° 47 ’ S 176 ° 55 ’ E), Dana stn. 3640 VIII, 2000 mw, 7 January 1929. Male (ZMUC); east of New Zealand (43 ° 40 ’ S 176 ° 36 ’ E), Dana stn. 3641 II, 100 m, 8 January 1929. Male & male (ZMUC); east of New Zealand (46 ° 43 ’ S 176 ° 08.5 ’ E), Dana stns. 3642 II & IV, 2500 & 1500 mw respectively, 9 January 1929. Female, male (ZMUC); Tasman Sea (33 ° 26 ’ S 157 ° 02 ’ E), Dana stn. 3656 II, 4000 mw, 29 January 1929. Male (ZMUC); Tasman Sea (33 ° 33 ’ S 154 ° 04 ’ E), Dana stn. 3663 II, 4000 mw, 23 February 1929. Indo-Pacific: Male (ZMUC); South China Sea (06 ° 55 ’ N 114 ° 02 ’ E), Dana stn. 3688 IV, 2000 mw, 8 April 1929. Two males (ZMUC); South China Sea (07 ° 13.5 ’ N 111 ° 49 ’ E), Dana stn. 3689 II, 9 April 1929. E. Indian: Male & male (ZMUC); south of Sri Lanka (05 ° 21 ’ N 80 ° 38 ’ E), Dana stns. 3909 II & IV, 4000 & 3000 mw respectively, 22 November 1929. Male (ZMUC); south of the Maldives (01 ° 45 ’ N 71 ° 05 ’ E), Dana stn. 3917 II, 3700 mw, 15 December 1929. W. Indian: Female (ZMUC); north of Madagascar (11 ° 18 ’ S 50 ° 03 ’ E), Dana stn. 3933 V, 2000 mw, 20 December 1929.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD1EFF868AA1FD60FD1198E1.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Females: Body length up to 30 mm, reaching sexual maturity at about 20 mm. Pereon of mature specimens greatly inflated due to enlarged pereonites 1 – 4 (5). Antennae 1 as long as head and first 1 – 5 pereonites combined (medially). Antennae 2 much reduced in length. Gnathopod 1; basis slightly shorter than remaining articles combined; carpus length about 1.3 x propodus; both armed with relatively long, fine setae on posterior margin, also on anterior margin, and medially on propodus; dactyl very short. Gnathopod 2 slightly longer and marginally more slender than G 1; basis slightly longer than remaining articles combined; carpus slightly shorter than propodus, both armed with setae as in G 1 but fewer; dactyl very short. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure and length; basis length 2.3 – 2.5 x merus; merus expanded distally with antero-distal and postero-distal corners slightly produced over carpus; carpus length 1.5 – 1.7 x merus; propodus marginally longer than merus; dactyl very short; all articles (except dactyl armed with short, fine setae on posterior margin and sometimes also on anterior margin (except basis). Pereopod 5; length about 0.9 – 1.1 x P 4; basis length almost twice merus; merus expanded distally with antero-distal and postero-distal corners marginally produced; carpus length 1.3 – 1.5 x merus; merus and carpus relatively broader in immature specimens (fig. 9); propodus length 0.6 x carpus; dactyl relatively short or, in immature specimens, can be long and thin, up to 0.5 x length propodus, inserted on anterior corner of propodus (fig. 9); articles with setae as for P 3 & 4. Pereopod 6; length about 0.8 – 0.9 x P 5; merus length varies from about 0.8 x basis (mature spec., fig. 10) to about 0.5 x basis (immature spec.); similarly carpus length varies from 0.7 x to slightly longer than merus; propodus length 0.6 – 0.7 x carpus; dactyl very short, curved, almost retractile, inserted on anterior corner of propodus; anterior margin of merus and carpus and both margins of propodus armed with short setae, the distal ones on propodus distinctly curled. Pereopod 7 similar in length to P 6; merus length varies from about 0.3 x basis (immature spec., fig. 9) to about 0.6 x basis (mature spec., fig. 10); similarly carpus length varies from slightly longer than (mature spec., fig. 10), to about 2.4 x length merus (immature spec., fig. 9); propodus length about half carpus; merus and carpus much broader in immature specimens; dactyl very short but not as short as for P 6, curved, inserted on anterior corner of propodus; articles armed with short setae as for P 6. Uropoda with relatively slender peduncles and rami; all with inner ramus distinctly longer than peduncle or outer ramus. Uropod 1; inner ramus length 1.8 x outer; and 1.6 x peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.3 x outer; and 1.7 x peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length 1.3 x outer and peduncle; peduncle width about half length. Telson triangular; length about 0.4 x peduncle of U 3. Males: Like females except for the following. Largest male recorded only 12 mm, reaching sexual maturity at about 11 mm. Pereon slightly arched, oval-shaped from dorsal aspect. Antennae 1 as long as head and first four pereonites combined; peduncular articles and callynophore relatively broader. Antennae 2 reduced in immature specimens, about 0.5 – 0.7 x A 1 in more mature specimens. Gnathopod 2; basis slightly shorter than remaining articles combined. Pereopod 5 slightly longer than P 4; propodus length almost 0.8 x carpus. Pereopod 6; length 0.9 x P 5; merus length about 0.4 x basis; carpus length about 1.3 x merus; propodus length 0.6 x carpus. Pereopod 7 similar in length to P 6; merus length 0.3 x basis; carpus length about 2.3 x merus. Uropod 1; inner ramus length almost twice outer, and 1.8 x peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.4 x outer, and 1.7 x peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length 1.5 x outer, and 1.3 x peduncle; peduncle width slightly more than half length. Colour, according to Vinogradov and Semenova (1996), “ males are translucent rose-red or dark red; females are colourless or translucent with dark-rose spots and carmine eyes ”. Bovallius (1885) says “ yellowish brown ”.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD1EFF868AA1FD60FD1198E1.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This is the largest species in the genus, most readily distinguished from its congeners by the simple, hirsute gnathopods, and the relatively short dactyls. In having gnathopods without processes, or an excavation on the propodus, this species resembles M. spandlii and M. colemani sp. nov., but in those species the dactyls are much stronger, and in M. spandlii the merus of pereopods 3 – 7 is only slightly longer than the ischium. In this species the pereon of females is only grossly inflated in very mature specimens, similar to that found in Archaeoscina. Immature specimens only have a slightly inflated pereon, similar to males, even in relatively large specimens. One specimen from the Japan Trench (SAMA C 6869), a female measuring 21.5 mm, is still immature, judging by the under-developed oostegites, yet the pereon is only marginally inflated. In addition to the above, there are other differences in morphology between mature and immature specimens, as noted in the diagnosis. In particular immature females tend to resemble males in the relative lengths of the pereopods with pereopod 5 slightly longer than pereopod 4, with slightly broader articles and a marginally longer dactyl. One characteristic feature of this species, especially for immature females, is the relatively narrower articles of pereopod 6, and the relatively broad basis, merus and carpus of pereopods 5 & 7, especially the carpus of pereopod 7, which can be relatively large and swollen (fig. 9). Also, in larger females the articles of pereopods 5 – 7 are relatively more slender, and the telson is marginally shorter (fig. 10). In some specimens the dactyls of pereopods 3 – 5 can be relatively longer, especially that of pereopod 5 (fig. 9). Again this seems to be a character of immature specimens. One lot of specimens, from the south-east Atlantic (Dana stn. 3978 VIII) contains a male and female with characters consistent with M. loveni, except that the pereopods are relatively longer and more slender, especially pereopods 6 & 7, which are as long, or slightly longer than, pereopod 5. The moderately large specimen from the Japan Trench, mentioned above, was captured by submersible while attached to the narcomedusa Solmissus sp.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD1EFF868AA1FD60FD1198E1.taxon	distribution	Distribution. This is one of the more common species of Mimonectes, having been found in all the world’s oceans except the Mediterranean Sea. In the Atlantic previous records are mainly from the northern part, from as far north as 63 ° 19 ’ N (Stephensen 1933), with few records from the south; all from tropical regions. In the Pacific it has been recorded from the Kuril-Kamchatka region, the tropics and south to 43 ° S (Vinogradov & Semenova 1996). It seems to be relatively rare in the Indian Ocean with only two previous literature records, from the Arabian Sea (Barnard 1937), and from the south-east and north-eastern parts (Vinogradov 1964). The Dana collected this species from all major oceans providing many range extensions, particularly in the south-east Atlantic to 30 ° 15 ’ S (stn. 3978), and the tropical and South Pacific, with new records for the South China Sea (stns. 3688 & 3689) and the Tasman Sea (stns. 3656 & 3663). The latter is also a new record for Australian waters. In the Indian Ocean the Dana only collected it from three stations, from tropical regions, indicating that this species may be less common there than in the Atlantic or Pacific. According to Vinogradov et al. (1982) this species is most commonly found in the 200 – 1000 m range, and sometimes occurs near the surface. The Dana collected most specimens of this species with 2000 – 5000 mw, indicating that it probably prefers deeper waters.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD16FF838AA1FF60FAD198E5.taxon	description	(Figs. 12 – 13)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD16FF838AA1FF60FAD198E5.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. Bovallius (1885) gives the type locality as “ The Atlantic: 28 ° N. L. 21 ° V. L., near the Canary Islands ”, but does not specify the sex or number specimens examined, and illustrates an apparently mature female. Later (1889) he gives a size range of 12 – 16 mm, indicating that, at that time, he had more than one specimen. The NRS has only one specimen of M. sphaericus dating from Bovallius’s time (No. 1747). It is from the North Atlantic (58 ° N 28 ° W), and is partly dissected with a red “ X ” on the label. It is likely that this specimen was seen by Bovallius (1889) but must be disregarded as type material because it is not from the type locality, and there is no indication on the label that it is type material. Similarly, the ZMUC also has a female specimen from the North Atlantic (46 ° N 18 ° W), W. Hygom XI- 1856, which was described and illustrated by Stephensen and Pirlot (1931), but is not regarded type material. However, there is one female specimen in the ZMUC (CRU- 8175) which is from the type locality, and on the label is written “ Vandklar med hójróde punkter Hygom ”, referring to the colour, “ hyaline with red spots ”, as recorded by Bovallius (1885). This is almost certainly type material, but the specimen is in two pieces with the head, gnathopods and some parts of the pereopods missing. Without the gnathopods it is impossible to identify this specimen with M. sphaericus with any degree of certainty, and so it must remain questionable type material. Type material of synonyms. Sphaeromimonectes valdiviae was presumably described from the material collected by the Valdivia, during the Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition 1898 – 99. Woltereck (1904 a) does not give any locality data, but later (1904 b) mentions that he now has two more specimens from the Deutschen Südpolar- Expedition 1901 – 03, and subsequently (1906) refers to the smaller Valdivia example. The MFN does not have any specimens from the Valdivia expedition, and so the type of S. valdiviae must be considered lost, but it does have a specimen from the latter expedition labelled “ Type ” (MFN 21335). This specimen is a mature female, about 21 – 23 mm in length, with a much inflated pereon, collected by the Gauss from the North Atlantic (33 ° 55 ’ N 16 ° 09 ’ W), 30 July 1901. This specimen, although labelled “ Type ” is considered very questionable type material because it was not collected by the Valdivia, was not mentioned by Woltereck (1904 a) until after the original description (Woltereck 1904 b), and the pereon is much more inflated than that illustrated by Woltereck (1904 a). However, an examination of this specimen, and an analysis of Woltereck’s descriptions and figures of this species, confirm the currently accepted synonymy with M. sphaericus. Type material of S. valdiviae pacifica could not be found in the MCZ, USNM or MFN and is considered lost. Woltereck (1909) based this new sub-species on a male specimen from the mid-south-eastern Pacific, near the Galapagos Islands (10 ° 15 ’ 22 ” S 95 ° 40 ’ 8 ” W); Albatross stn. 4709, 600 – 0 m, 31 December 1904. The differences noted by Woltereck can be attributed to the sexual dimorphism observed in this species, and it is considered a synonym of M. sphaericus, along with S. valdiviae. Woltereck (1909) proposed the name S. valdiviae forma typica for the typical form of S. valdiviae found in the Atlantic, to distinguish it from S. valdiviae pacifica from the Pacific. As this name was proposed only in a general discussion of the species, it is unlikely that a type was selected, or deemed necessary, and none could be found in the USNM or MFN. Material examined. Types. Questionable type material of M. loveni and S. valdiviae as detailed above. Other material examined. N. E. Atlantic: Female (NHM 1961.8.1.306); north-west of Gulf of Guinea (01 ° 30 ’ N 10 ° 10 ’ W), Atlantide stn. 139, 1750 mw, 2 April 1946. Male (ZMUC); south-west of Cape Verde Islands (12 ° 11 ’ N 35 ° 49 ’ W), Dana stn. 1165 III, 600 mw, 9 November 1921. Male & female (ZMUC); west of Sierra Leone (08 ° 26 ’ N 15 ° 11 ’ W), Dana stns. 4003 II & VII, 5000 mw, 9 March 1930. Juv. (ZMUC); off Senegal (13 ° 31 ’ N 18 ° 03 ’ W), Dana stn. 4005 VI, 1000 mw, 12 March 1930. Juv. female (ZMUC); Bay of Biscay (46 ° 28 ’ N 08 ° 01 ’ W), Dana stn. 4158, 2000 mw, 18 June 1930. S. E. Atlantic: Female & six males (ZMUC); off South Africa (30 ° 15 S 13 ° 15 ’ E), Dana stns. 3978 VII & VIII, 4000 & 3000 mw respectively, 13 February 1930. Male (ZMUC); off South Africa (23 ° 26 ’ S 03 ° 56 ’ E), Dana stn. 3980 VII, 5000 mw, 17 February 1930. Three males (ZMUC); near St. Helena (15 ° 41 ’ S 05 ° 50 ’ W), Dana stn. 3996 II, 3000 mw, 25 February 1930. Juv. (ZMUC); north of St. Helena (07 ° 34 ’ S 08 ° 48 ’ W), Dana stn. 3997 VII, 5000 mw, 1 March 1930. Female & two males & two females (ZMUC); south of Liberia (00 ° 31 ’ S 11 ° 02 ’ W), Dana stns. 4000 III, VII & XI, 300, 5000 & 1000 mw respectively, 4 March 1930. N. E. Pacific: Male & male (ZMUC); north of Galapagos Islands (02 ° 52 ’ N 87 ° 38 ’ W), Dana stns. 3556 II & V, 2000 & 600 mw respectively, 14 September 1928. Male (ZMUC); Gulf of Panama (06 ° 48 ’ N 80 ° 33 ’ W), Dana stn. 1208 XIV, 3100 mw, 16 January 1922. Male (SAMA C 6871); off Baja California (35 ° 30 ’ N 123 ° 52 ’ W), ROV HyperDolphin dive 842, 1082 m, 7 April 2005. Juv. (SAMA C 6873); off Pismo Beach, California (35 ° 38 ’ N 122 ° 44 ’ W), ROV dive 984 – 05, 690 m, 13 May 2006. Female (SAMA C 6872); same stn. as above, ROV dive 985 – 09, 1344 m, 14 May 2006. Female (SAMA C 6874); Monterey Canyon, California (36 ° 68.5 ’ N 122 ° 06.3 ’ W), ROV dive 843, 392 m, 5 May 2003. Male (SAMA C 6875); Endeavour Ridge, ‘ Hot Vent’ (48 ° 10 ’ N 129 ° 45 ’ W), ex. M. Galbraith, 18 July 1991. N. W. Pacific: Male (ZMUC); south of Japan (30 ° 20 ’ N 138 ° 00 ’ E), Dana stn. 4775, 220 m, 11 April 1933. Female (SAMA C 6876, ex. JAMSTEC); Japan Trench (38 ° 56.1 ’ N 143 ° 05.6 ’ E), ROV HyperDolphin dive 100, 841 m, 25 April 2002. S. E. Pacific: Two males & female, male & juv. male (ZMUC); south-east of Panama (00 ° 18 ’ S 99 ° 07 ’ W), Dana stns. 3558 II, IV & VIII, 2000, 1000 & 100 mw respectively, 18 September 1928. Juv. (ZMUC); south-east of Galapagos Islands (04 ° 20 ’ S 116 ° 46 ’ W), Dana stn. 3561 IV, 2000 mw, 24 September 1928. S. W. Pacific: Juv. (ZMUC); near Samoa (11 ° 00 ’ S 172 ° 37 ’ W), Dana stn. 3587 V, 2000 mw, 2 November 1928. Damaged spec. & female (ZMUC); north of New Zealand (25 ° 47 ’ S 172 ° 24 ’ E), Dana stns. 3621 II & IV, 4000 & 2000 mw respectively, 8 December 1928. Juv. male (ZMUC); north-west of Kermadec Islands (27 ° 21 ’ S 175 ° 11 ’ E), Dana stn. 3623 V, 200 mw, 9 December 1928. Two males (ZMUC); west of Kermadec Islands (28 ° 17.6 ’ S 177 ° 01 ’ E), Dana stn. 3624 III, 3000 mw, 10 December 1928. Male (ZMUC CRU- 20412); north of New Zealand (34 ° 24 ’ S 178 ° 42.5 ’ E), Dana stn. 3630 II, 2000 mw, 17 December 1928. Juv. (ZMUC); east of New Zealand (41 ° 47 ’ S 176 ° 55 ’ E), Dana stn. 3640 VII, 2500 mw, 7 January 1929. Male (ZMUC); east of New Zealand (46 ° 43 ’ S 176 ° 08.5 ’ E), Dana stn. 3642 II, 2500 mw, 9 January 1929. Male (ZMUC); west of New Zealand (35 ° 36 ’ S 171 ° 52 ’ E), Dana stn. 3651 VII, 300 mw, 22 January 1929. Female (ZMUC CRU- 20411); Tasman Sea (33 ° 30.5 ’ S 165 ° 53 ’ E), Dana stn. 3653 VII, 2500 mw, 26 January 1929. Male (ZMUC); Tasman Sea (33 ° 26 ’ S 157 ° 02 ’ E), Dana stn. 3656 II, 4000 mw, 29 January 1929. E. Indian: Three males (ZMUC); off Sumatra (00 ° 55.5 ’ S 98 ° 15.5 ’ E), Dana stn. 3822 I, 200 mw, 14 September 1929.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD16FF838AA1FF60FAD198E5.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Females: Body length up to 25 mm, reaching sexual maturity at about 18 mm. Pereon of very mature specimens greatly inflated due to enlargement of pereonites 1 – 4 (5). Antennae 1 as long as head and first 2.5 pereonites combined (medially). Antennae 2 much reduced in length. Gnathopod 1; basis length about 0.6 x remaining articles combined; carpus slightly shorter than propodus, both armed with relatively long, fine setae on posterior margin, also on anterior margin and medially of propodus; posterior margin of propodus with slight excavation and stronger setae distally; dactyl length 0.2 – 0.3 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 slightly longer than G 1; basis length about 0.8 x remaining articles combined; carpus relatively short, length only two-thirds propodus, both armed with some slender setae on posterior margin; propodus expanded distally with distinct postero-distal excavation (variable in depth) and pairs of stronger setae on postero-distal corner to accommodate dactyl; dactyl strong, curved, length almost 0.4 x propodus. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure and length; basis length about 1.8 x merus; carpus length 1.3 x merus; propodus as long as merus; dactyl curved, very short; all articles (except dactyl) armed with short, fine setae on posterior margin and also on anterior margin (except basis), becoming more numerous and slightly curled on propodus. Pereopod 5 similar in length to P 4; basis length about 1.7 x merus; carpus as long as merus; propodus length 0.7 x carpus; dactyl curved, very short; all articles armed with fine setae as for P 3 & 4. Pereopod 6 slightly shorter than P 5; relative lengths of merus and carpus as for P 5; propodus length about 0.6 x carpus; dactyl curved, very short; all articles armed with fine setae as for P 5. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 6; basis length 2.6 x merus; carpus length 1.6 x merus, often glandular and slightly broader than other articles (merus relatively shorter than in other pereopods); propodus only marginally longer than half of carpus, often glandular; dactyl curved, very short; all articles armed with setae as for P 6. Uropoda with relatively slender peduncles and rami; all with inner ramus slightly longer than peduncle. Uropod 1; inner ramus length 1.5 x outer, and 1.1 x peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.6 x outer, and 1.1 x peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length 1.2 x outer, and 1.3 x peduncle; peduncle width marginally more than half length. Telson triangular; length about 0.4 x peduncle of U 3. Males: Like females except for the following. Largest male recorded only 10.0 mm (immature). Pereon slightly arched, oval-shaped from dorsal aspect. Antennae 1 as long as head and first six pereonites combined; peduncular articles and callynophore relatively broader. Antennae 2 reduced in immature specimens, about 0.7 x A 1 in more mature specimens. Gnathopod 2 as long as G 1; basis length 0.7 x remaining articles combined; carpus slightly shorter than half propodus. Pereopods 3 & 4; merus relatively shorter and carpus relatively longer; carpus length 1.5 – 1.6 x merus; propodus slightly longer than merus. Pereopod 5 slightly longer than P 4. Pereopod 6 slightly shorter than P 5 but only marginally shorter than P 4; basis length 1.8 x merus; carpus slightly longer than merus. Pereopod 7; basis length 3 x merus; carpus length 2.7 x merus; propodus length half carpus. Uropoda with inner ramus distinctly longer than peduncle. Uropod 1; inner ramus length 1.5 x outer, and 1.4 x peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.3 x outer and peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length 1.2 x outer, and 1.6 x peduncle; peduncle width slightly more than half length. Colour, according to Vinogradov and Semenova (1996), “ males and females are deep red or cherry-red; juveniles with rosy medial mesosome, pereopod I, II and mouthparts are red; rest of pereopoda and body are translucent and colourless ”. Bovallius (1885) records “ hyaline, with red spots ”.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD16FF838AA1FF60FAD198E5.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species is readily distinguished from its congeners by the morphology of the gnathopods, especially the postero-distal excavation of the propodus of gnathopod 2. It is similar to M. loveni in that the pereon of very mature females is grossly inflated, and also in the general morphology of the pereopods and the urosome. Apart from the morphological variations due to sexual dimorphism and sexual maturity (as noted for M. loveni), there is considerable variation in the development of the excavation on the propodus of gnathopod 2. In some specimens the excavation can be quite deep with the postero-distal corner more strongly developed, and with stronger, shorter setae to accommodate the dactyl when it is pressed against the propodus. While one might expect this excavation to be more developed in larger or mature specimens, this is not necessarily the case as the excavation can be well-developed in relatively small specimens (8.6 mm) and less well-developed in relatively large specimens (16.6 mm) (see fig. 12). Similarly, gnathopod 1 can be without a noticeable excavation, or it can be slight and similar to gnathopod 2, as illustrated by Bovallius (1889) for the type (see also Stephensen & Pirlot (1931 )). In this respect, these specimens might be confused with M. neosphaericus sp. nov., but males of this species are readily distinguished by the habitus, thick cuticle, stronger dactyls and the relatively longer telson. Females are more difficult to distinguish, but the structure of the dactyls of the pereopods seems to be a consistent character. In M. sphaericus the dactyls are weak and semi-colon-shaped, whereas in M. neosphaericus sp. nov. they are a strong, short nail, particularly for pereopod 7. It is possible that specimens with slight excavations on both gnathopoda, as illustrated for the type by Bovallius (1889), represent the true M. sphaericus and that those specimens with relatively simple first gnathopoda and second gnathopoda, with a deep excavation, represent another species, but at this stage I am unable to readily distinguish them, particularly as the depth of the excavation of gnathopod 2 is variable. Most of the specimens collected by submersibles from the north-east Pacific were caught while associated with a gelatinous host. Two females (SAMA C 6872 & C 6874), from off California, and the male (SAMA C 6871), from off Baja California (recorded by Gasca et al. (2006), were captured while on the siphonophore Nectadamus diomedeae. The juvenile, from off Pismo Beach, California (SAMA C 6873), was caught while on the hydromedusan, Bythotiara sp. The large, but immature, female from the Japan Trench (SAMA C 6876; fig. 12), also captured by submersible, was caught while attached to the narcomedusan Solmissus sp.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD16FF838AA1FF60FAD198E5.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Like M. loveni, this is one of the more commonly collected species of Mimonectes, having been found in all the world’s oceans except the Mediterranean Sea. In the Atlantic previous records are all from the northern part, from as far north as Greenland (Stephensen 1923) to tropical regions. I cannot find any published record from the South Atlantic but it is included in the South Atlantic fauna by Vinogradov (1999). In the Pacific it has been recorded from various regions, ranging from the Bering Sea and Kuril-Kamchatka region, through the tropics, right down to Antarctic waters (64 ° 03 ’ S 161 ° 59 ’ E) (Vinogradov 1962). It seems to be rare in the Indian Ocean (like M. loveni), with only one previous literature record (Vinogradov 1964), mainly from tropical regions (06 ° N to 30 ° S). The Dana collected this species extensively in the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, providing many range extensions with new records for the south-eastern Atlantic and the Tasman Sea. The latter is also a new record for Australian waters. In the Indian Ocean the Dana only collected it from one station, near Sumatra (stn. 3822) suggesting that this species may indeed be rare in this ocean. According to Vinogradov et al. (1982) this species is usually found in the 200 – 2000 m range. The Dana collected specimens from a range of depths with 100 – 5000 mw, but most were collected with around 2000 mw.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD2DFFB88AA1FF60FDA89A95.taxon	description	(Figs. 14 – 15)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD2DFFB88AA1FF60FDA89A95.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. The unique holotype is in the MFN (21334). It is a partly dissected, mature female, with welldeveloped oostegites, measuring about 20 mm. The type locality is the north-east Atlantic (40 ° 34 ’ N 12 ° 46 ’ W); collected by the Gauss, Deutschen Südpolar-Expedition, 26 July 1901. Type material of synonyms. Type material of P. fowleri is in the NHM (1905.111.8.22), consisting of two male or juvenile specimens; one mounted whole on a microscope slide, probably the one illustrated by Stebbing (1904), measuring about 8 mm and one other, damaged specimen, measuring about 9 mm, used to illustrate the mouthparts. The type locality is the Bay of Biscay, HMS Research stns. 26 b & 27 a, 2000 – 1500 & 1250 – 0 fathoms respectively, G. H. Fowler, 26 June 1903. An examination of this material has confirmed the generally accepted synonymy. Material examined. Types. The holotype of M. gaussi and the syntypes of P. fowleri as detailed above. Other material examined. N. E. Atlantic: Two males (ZMUC); south of Iceland (61 ° 34 ’ N 19 ° 03 ’ W), Thor stn. 180, 1800 mw, 10 July 1904. Eight males (ZMUC); south of Iceland (61 ° 30 ’ N 17 ° 08 ’ W), Thor stn. 183, 1800 mw, 11 July 1904. Eighteen females, 11 juv. (USNM 1149253); off Portugal, R / V Discovery, 1959. Female (ZMUC); Gulf of Guinea (05 ° 27 ’ N 00 ° 07 ’ E), Atlantide stn. 82, 0 – 100 m, 29 January 1946. Male & two males & female, male (ZMUC); north of Madeira (33 ° 26 ’ N 16 ° 59 ’ W), Dana stns. 1142 VI, VII & IX, 5000, 4000 & 2000 mw respectively, 15 October 1921. Male (ZMUC CRU- 20415); west of Sierra Leone (08 ° 26 ’ N 15 ° 11 ’ W), Dana stn. 4003 II, 5000 mw, 9 March 1930. N. W. Atlantic: Seven females, two males, two juv. (USNM 1149263); mid- Atlantic (27 ° 44 ’ N 37 ° 10 ’ W), R / V Pillsbury stn. P 6511 – 21 cx, 270 – 430 m, 1 November 1966. Juv. (ZMUC); Davis Strait, Greenland (63 ° 06 ’ N 56 ° 00 ’ W), Ingolf stn. 24, 377 – 0 m, 25 June 1895. Female (ZMUC); north of Brazil (08 ° 19 ’ N 44 ° 35 ’ W), Dana stn. 1171, 3000 mw, 13 November 1921. Two females (ZMUC); Caribbean Sea (17 ° 54 ’ N 64 ° 54 ’ W), Dana stn. 1186 III, 3000 mw, 30 November 1921. Juv. male (SAMA C 6877); Veach Canyon, east of New York (39 ° 51.34 ’ N 69 ° 37.15 ’ W), ROV dive 2139 – 5, ex. G. Matsumoto, 8 August 1987. Two males (SAMA C 6878); western Caribbean Sea, off Chincharro Bank (18 ° 34.783 ’ N 87 ° 08.609 ’ W), Gordon Gunter (NOAA) stn. 49, J. Lamkin, 3 March 2006. S. E. Atlantic: Two males & juv. male (ZMUC); off South Africa (30 ° 15 ’ S 13 ° 15 ’ E), Dana stns. 3978 VII & VIII, 4000 & 3000 mw respectively, 13 February 1930. Female (ZMUC); off South Africa (23 ° 26 ’ S 03 ° 56 ’ E), Dana stn. 3980 IX, 3000 mw, 17 February 1930. Female (ZMUC); north of St. Helena (07 ° 34 ’ S 08 ° 48 ’ W), Dana stn. 3998 IX, 3000 mw, 1 March 1930. Female, male & female (ZMUC); south of Liberia (00 ° 31 ’ S 11 ° 02 ’ W), Dana stns. 4000 IV & VIII, 100 & 4000 mw respectively, 4 March 1930. Female (ZMUC); Gulf of Guinea (04 ° 00 ’ S 08 ° 25 ’ E), Galathea stn. 66, 5300 mw, 5 December 1950. S. W. Atlantic: Female (USNM 1149252); east of Pernambuco, Brazil (08 ° 05 ’ S 25 ° 24 ’ W), R / V Gillis, stn. 6 - T 7 (USNOO exped.), 720 m, 10 February 1969. N. W. Pacific: Female (SAMA C 6879, ex. JAMSTEC), Sagami Bay, Japan (35 ° 01 ’ N 139 ° 21.6 ’ E), 559 m, ROV HyperDolphin dive 306, 15 June 2004. Juv. (SAMA C 7574, ex. JAMSTEC); Sagami Bay, Japan (35 ° 00 ’ N 139 ° 20 ’ E), R / V Tansei Maru stn. P-MTD- 2 (cruise KT 96 – 10), 400 m, col. D. J. Lindsay, 13 July 1996. Juv. (SAMA C 7575, ex. JAMSTEC); Sagami Bay, Japan (35 ° 00 ’ N 139 ° 20 ’ E), R / V Kaiyo stn. IO 60315 A- 5 (cruise KY 06 – 03), 450 – 500 m, col. D. J. Lindsay, 15 March 2006. Male (SAMA C 7576, ex. JAMSTEC); Sagami Bay, Japan (34 ° 50 ’ N 139 ° 36 ’ E), R / V Kaiyo stn. IO 60320 A- 4 - 2 (cruise 06 – 03), 600 – 700 m, col. D. J. Lindsay, 20 March 2006. Female (SAMA C 7577, ex. JAMSTEC); Sagami Bay, Japan (34 ° 41 ’ N 139 ° 49 ’ E), R / V Kaiyo stn. IO 60324 D- 2 (cruise 06 – 03), 600 – 650 m, col. D. J. Lindsay, 24 March 2006. Juv. (SAMA C 7578, ex. JAMSTEC); Sagami Bay, Japan (34 ° 41 ’ N 139 ° 49 ’ E), R / V Kaiyo stn. IO 60324 D- 6 (cruise 06 – 03), 400 – 450 m, col. D. J. Lindsay, 24 March 2006. Female (SAMA C 7579, ex. JAMSTEC); Suruga Bay, Japan (34 ° 32 ’ N 138 ° 32 ’ E), R / V Kaiyo stn. IO 40328 b- 6 H (cruise 04 – 03), 11 – 1000 m, col. D. J. Lindsay, 24 March 2004. Two females (SAMA C 7014, ex. JAMSTEC); outside Kurose Hole, S. of Sagami Bay, Japan (33 ° 48 ’ N 139 ° 56 ’ E), R / V Yokosuka stn. IO 704 (cruise YK 07 – 06), 500 – 595 m, col. D. J. Lindsay, 21 April 2007. Male (SAMA C 6880, ex. JAMSTEC), Suruga Bay, Japan (34 ° 32 ’ N 138 ° 32 ’ E), 11 – 1000 m, col. D. J. Lindsay, 28 May 2004. N. E. Pacific: Female (SAMA C 6945); off Vancouver I. (48 ° 20 ’ N 125 ° 04 ’ W), ex M. Galbraith, cruise WCU 1, 250 – 0 m, Aug / Sept 2009. S. E. Pacific: Male (ZMUC); south-east of Panama (00 ° 18 ’ S 99 ° 07 ’ W), Dana stn. 3558 II, 2000 mw, 18 September 1928. Female (ZMUC); south of Tahiti (18 ° 49 ’ S 153 ° 10 ’ W), Dana stn. 3577 IX, 2000 mw, 19 October 1928. S. W. Pacific: Female (ZMUC); near Samoa (11 ° 00 ’ S 172 ° 37 ’ W), Dana stn. 3587 V, 2000 mw, 2 November 1928. Female (ZMUC); east of New Caledonia (20 ° 00 ’ S 174 ° 29 ’ E), Dana stn. 3602 VII, 3000 mw, 22 November 1928. Juv. (ZMUC); near New Caledonia (22 ° 43 ’ S 166 ° 05.8 ’ E), Dana stn. 3613 VIII, 3000 mw, 22 November 1928. Male (ZMUC); north of New Zealand (25 ° 47 ’ S 172 ° 24 ’ E), Dana stn. 3621 III, 3000 mw, 8 December 1928. Female, two males & male & male (ZMUC); north of New Zealand (30 ° 08 ’ S 176 ° 50 ’ E), Dana stns. 3627 II, III & IV, 4000, 3000 & 2000 mw respectively, 14 December 1928. Three females, 25 males (ZMUC); north of New Zealand (34 ° 24 ’ S 178 ° 42.5 ’ E), Dana stn. 3630 II, 2000 mw, 17 December 1928. Eight males & four females, male (ZMUC); east of New Zealand (41 ° 47 ’ S 176 ° 55 ’ E), Dana stns. 3640 VII & VIII, 2500 & 2000 mw respectively, 7 January 1929. Female (ZMUC); west of New Zealand (35 ° 36 ’ S 171 ° 52 ’ E), Dana stn. 3651 VI, 600 mw, 22 January 1929. Male (ZMUC); Tasman Sea (33 ° 30.5 ’ S 165 ° 53 ’ E), Dana stn. 3653 VII, 3500 mw, 26 January 1929. Female & three males (ZMUC); Tasman Sea (33 ° 26 ’ S 157 ° 02 ’ E), Dana stns. 3656 II & IV, 4000 & 2000 mw respectively, 29 January 1929. Indo-Pacific: Male & two males (ZMUC); South China Sea (06 ° 55 ’ N 114 ° 02 ’ E), Dana stns. 3688 III & IV, 3000 & 2000 mw respectively, 8 April 1929. Female, male (ZMUC); South China Sea (07 ° 13.5 ’ N 111 ° 49 ’ E), Dana stn. 3689 III, 2000 mw, 9 April 1929. E. Indian: Female & male (ZMUC); south of the Maldives (01 ° 45 ’ N 71 ° 05 ’ E), Dana stns. 3917 II & IV, 3700 & 2200 mw respectively, 15 December 1929.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD2DFFB88AA1FF60FDA89A95.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Females: Body length up to 20 mm, reaching sexual maturity at about 15 mm or less. Pereon of mature specimens moderately inflated, due to enlarged pereonites 1 – 5. Antennae 1 as long as head and first 1.5 pereonites combined (medially). Antennae 2 much reduced, consisting of two small articles. Gnathopod 1; basis almost as long as remaining articles combined; carpus and propodus of similar length; propodus armed with long, fine setae on both margins, antero-distal corner produced into relatively long, sharp process over-lapping the dactyl, postero-distal corner similarly produced but much shorter; dactyl long and slender, length about 0.4 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 slightly longer and more slender than G 1; basis almost as long as remaining articles combined; carpus slightly shorter than propodus; propodus with fine setae on distal margin, both distal corners produced as for G 1; dactyl as for G 1, length about 0.3 x propodus. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure with P 4 marginally longer; merus relatively short, length slightly less than twice ischium, or about 0.25 x basis, with anterodistal corner slightly produced forward; carpus slightly shorter than basis, amygdaloid in shape, mid-width almost 0.3 x length; propodus length about 0.6 x carpus, relatively narrow, tapering distally. Pereopod 5 slightly longer than P 4; basis length twice merus; carpus length 1.4 x merus; propodus length almost 0.8 x carpus, relatively thin, tapering distally; dactyl very short and thin. Pereopod 6; length about 0.7 x P 5; basis length slightly more than twice merus; carpus length 1.5 x merus; propodus slightly shorter than carpus, relatively thin, tapering distally; dactyl very short and thin. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 6; structure and relative lengths of articles similar to P 6. Uropoda with relatively broad peduncles and rami; all with inner ramus slightly longer than outer and slightly shorter than peduncle. Uropod 1; inner ramus length 1.5 x outer, and 0.9 x peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.6 x outer, and 0.8 x peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length 1.2 x outer, and 0.9 x peduncle; peduncle width about 0.6 x length. Telson triangular; length about 0.3 x peduncle of U 3. Males: Like females except for the following. Largest male recorded only about 9 mm, reaching sexual maturity at about 8 mm. Pereon slightly arched, oval-shaped from dorsal aspect; pereonites 1 – 4 sometimes with slight dorsal keel (fig. 15). Antennae 1 as long as head and first five pereonites combined; peduncular articles and callynophore relatively broader. Antennae 2 reduced in immature specimens, about 0.7 x (or more) length A 1 in mature specimens. Articles of G 1 – P 4, all relatively more slender. Gnathopod 1; basis length only 0.6 x remaining articles combined; propodus slightly shorter than carpus, with numerous long, fine setae anteriorly; dactyl relatively stronger. Gnathopod 2 slightly shorter than G 1; relative lengths of articles similar to G 1. Pereopods 3 & 4; carpus linear, not amygdaloid; merus relatively longer, length about 0.4 x basis; propodus only slightly shorter than carpus. Pereopod 4 marginally shorter than P 3. Pereopod 5; basis length 2.5 x merus; carpus length 2.2 x merus; dactyl slightly stronger. Pereopod 6 marginally longer than P 5, and longest pereopod; basis length 2.2 x merus; carpus length 2.1 x merus; propodus length 0.8 x carpus; dactyl slightly stronger. Pereopod 7 similar to P 5 in length and relative lengths of articles. Uropoda with rami marginally more slender in immature specimens, sometimes with inner ramus of U 3 slightly longer than the peduncle (fig. 14). Colour, according to water-colour paintings by K. Stephensen (in ZMUC) of female from Dana stn. 1171, pale-red to pink with slightly darker abdomen. Based on photo provided by D. J. Lindsay — pereon, buccal mass and gnathopods rose-red; pleon light red; remainder mainly translucent.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD2DFFB88AA1FF60FDA89A95.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This is a much smaller species than the previous two, with females reaching sexual maturity at about 15 mm and males at about 8 mm. Also, unlike the previous two species, the pereon of mature females is only moderately inflated (fig. 14). Stephensen and Pirlot (1931), for example, illustrate an ovigerous female, about 10 mm in length, with the pereon only slightly inflated. This species is very similar to M. diomedeae. Both are readily distinguished from all their congeners by the morphology of the gnathopods, in that they are the only species where the antero-distal angle of the propodus is projected into a distinct, sharp process, partly over-lapping the dactyl. Mimonectes gaussi differs from M. diomedeae mainly in the shape of the propodus of the gnathopods. In M. gaussi it is relatively narrow, tapering distally, whereas in M. diomedeae it is oval-shaped, almost not tapering distally, and the antero-distal denticle is broader, more-or-less petaloid. Additional distinguishing characters are as follows. In females of M. gaussi pereopods 6 & 7 are much shorter than pereopod 5 (relatively longer in M. diomedeae), and the propodus of pereopods 5 – 7 is distinctly shorter than the carpus (similar in length or marginally longer in M. diomedeae). Males of M. gaussi have pereopods 3 – 5 with stronger dactyls (feeble in M. diomedeae), the carpus of pereopods 3 & 4 is not inflated (amygdaloid), and the propodus of pereopods 5 – 7 is distinctly shorter than the carpus (longer than carpus, especially for P 7 in M. diomedeae). An immature male specimen (5.6 mm) from the north-west Atlantic (SAMA C 6877), captured by submersible, was found in association with the ctenophore Bolinopsis sp. This specimen also differed from others in having slightly more slender pereopods and uropoda, and relatively longer rami (fig. 14). Another specimen, an immature female, from Japan (SAMA C 6879), also captured by submersible, was found in association with an unidentified lobate ctenophore.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD2DFFB88AA1FF60FDA89A95.taxon	distribution	Distribution. This species is not as common as the previous two, but it has been recorded from all the world’s oceans except the Mediterranean Sea. In the Atlantic most previous records are from the north, ranging from the Davis Strait (Stephensen 1923) to Madeira and Bermuda, with only one record from the south, off South Africa (Barnard 1932 — as Parascina fowleri). In the Pacific it has been recorded from various regions, in the north-west from the Kuril-Kamchatka region to the Philippines and off Mexico, and in the south from near the Kermadec Trench and off the coast of Chile. The only record from the north-eastern Pacific is by Sanger (1973) who records it from off British Columbia, but this identification needs to be verified. The only previous record from the Indian Ocean is by Vinogradov (1964) who recorded it from the Arabian Sea and the tropics to 19 ° S. The Dana collected this species from all major oceans, providing many range extensions, particularly in the tropical and South Pacific, with new records for the South China Sea (stns. 3688 & 3689) and the Tasman Sea (stns. 3653 & 3656). The latter is also a new record for Australian waters. In the Indian Ocean the Dana only collected it from one station (3917), near the Maldives, indicating that this species, like the previous two, may be less common there than in the Atlantic or Pacific. Additional records for the north-western Atlantic and Japanese waters are provided by specimens in museum collections (SAMA). Surprisingly there are no confirmed records from the north-east Pacific. According to Vinogradov et al. (1982), this species is usually found in depths exceeding 500 m, but rises to shallower depths. Most of the Dana specimens were collected with 2000 – 4000 mw, with two at 5000 mw, and only one each at 100 mw and 600 mw.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD29FFBB8AA1F9DAFA22995D.taxon	description	(Figs. 16 – 17)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD29FFBB8AA1F9DAFA22995D.taxon	description	2007: 135, 189 (list). Gasca 2009: 86 (table), 92. Mimonectes gaussi & Mimonecteola macronyx [mis-identification] — Mori et al. 2010: 3 (list), 8 (list).	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD29FFBB8AA1F9DAFA22995D.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. The unique holotype, described as female, could not be found in the MCZ, USNM or MFN and is considered lost. The type locality is the south-east Pacific, off Peru (11 ° 59 ’ S 83 ° 40 ’ 04 ” W), Albatross stn. 4667, 600 – 0 m, 18 November 1904. The original description and figure provided by Woltereck (1909) are very inadequate, and the status of this species has been in doubt in the past (see remarks). Material examined. N. E. Atlantic: Juv. male & male (ZMUC); off Sierra Leone (08 ° 26 ’ N 15 ° 11 ’ W), Dana stns. 4003 III & IV, 4000 & 3000 mw respectively, 9 March 1930. Male (ZMUC); off Senegal (13 ° 31 ’ N 18 ° 03 ’ W), Dana stn. 4005 IV, 3000 mw, 12 March 1930. N. W. Atlantic: Male (ZMUC); Caribbean Sea (17 ° 54 ’ N 64 ° 54 ’ W), Dana stn. 1186 II, 1000 mw, 30 November 1921. S. E. Atlantic: Female & three males (ZMUC); off South Africa (30 ° 15 ’ S 13 ° 15 ’ E), Dana stns. 3978 VII & VIII, 4000 & 3000 mw respectively, 13 February 1930. Male (ZMUC); off South Africa (23 ° 26 ’ S 03 ° 56 ’ E), Dana stn. 3980 IX, 3000 mw, 17 February 1930. Male (ZMUC CRU- 20417); north of St. Helena (07 ° 34 ’ S 08 ° 48 ’ W), Dana stn. 3998 X, 2000 mw, 1 March 1930. Indo-Pacific: Female (ZMUC); South China Sea (06 ° 55 ’ N 114 ° 02 ’ E), Dana stn. 3688 III, 3000 mw, 8 April 1929.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD29FFBB8AA1F9DAFA22995D.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Females: Body length of mature specimens exceeds 18 mm. Pereon of mature specimens moderately inflated, due to enlargement of pereonites 1 – 5. Antennae 1 as long as head and first 1.5 pereonites combined (medially). Antennae 2 much reduced, consisting of 4 – 5 small articles. Gnathopod 1; basis slightly shorter than remaining articles combined; carpus and propodus of similar length; propodus oval-shaped, armed with long, fine setae on both margins (more dense on anterior margin), antero-distal corner produced into petaloid process over-lapping dactyl, postero-distal corner similarly produced but much shorter; dactyl long and slender, length almost 0.3 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 slightly longer than G 1; basis slightly shorter than remaining articles combined; carpus slightly shorter than propodus; propodus with fine setae on distal margin, both distal corners produced similar to G 1; dactyl as for G 1, length about 0.2 x propodus. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure and length; merus relatively short, length about 1.5 x ischium with antero-distal corner slightly produced forward; carpus similar in length to basis, amygdaloid in shape, mid-width almost 0.3 x length; propodus length about 0.6 x carpus, relatively narrow, tapering distally; dactyl very short and thin. Pereopod 5 slightly longer than P 4; basis length twice merus; carpus length almost 1.7 x merus; propodus and dactyl missing from available specimens. Pereopod 6 similar in length to P 4; basis length about twice merus; carpus length 1.4 x merus; propodus sub-equal in length to carpus, relatively thin, tapering distally; dactyl very short and thin. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 6; structure and relative lengths of articles similar to P 6. Uropoda with relatively broad peduncles and rami; all with inner ramus slightly longer than outer and slightly shorter than peduncle. Uropoda all with inner ramus length 1.2 x outer, and 0.8 x peduncle. Uropod 3; peduncle width about 0.6 – 0.7 x length. Telson triangular; length about 0.3 x peduncle of U 3. Males: Like females except for the following. Largest male recorded only 14 mm. Pereon slightly arched, oval-shaped from dorsal aspect. Antennae 1 as long as head and first four pereonites combined; peduncular articles and callynophore relatively broader. Antennae 2 reduced in immature specimens, possibly exceeding 0.7 x length A 1 in mature specimens (mature specimens not available for study). Pereopods 3 & 4; merus relatively shorter, sub-equal in length to ischium; propodus relatively longer, about 0.8 x carpus. Pereopod 6 slightly longer than P 5, and longest pereopod; basis length 2.4 x merus; carpus length 2.2 x merus. Pereopod 7 similar to P 5 in length and relative lengths of articles. Uropoda with marginally more slender rami, with inner ramus similar in length to peduncle. Colour not known for living specimens.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD29FFBB8AA1F9DAFA22995D.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The similarity of this species to M. gaussi has already been discussed under that species. It is likely that this species has been misidentified as M. gaussi in the past, with some authors considering the two species synonymous (e. g. Shoemaker 1945). This is partly because Woltereck’s (1909) original description and figure are very inadequate, and it was not until Vinogradov (1957) provided illustrations of the gnathopods that the species was recognised as distinct from M. gaussi.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD29FFBB8AA1F9DAFA22995D.taxon	distribution	Distribution. This seems to be a very rare species despite possible confusion with M. gaussi in the past. Apart from the type, there are only seven literature records of specimens captured. Shoemaker (1945) from the North Atlantic, off Bermuda (as M. gaussi, in part); Vinogradov (1957) from the north-western Pacific (39 ° 58 ’ N 164 ° 55 ’ E), 0 – 5300 m; Vinogradov (1960 a) from the tropical Pacific, off Hawaii (20 ° 21 ’ N 173 ° 24 ’ W), 0 – 3500 m; Vinogradov (1964) from the tropical south-western Indian Ocean, east of Madagascar (16 ° 07 ’ S 53 ° 39 ’ E), 0 – 3850 m; Garcia-Madrigal (2007) from the Gulf of California; Gasca (2008) from the Mexican Pacific and Mori et al. (2010) from Sagami Bay, Japan (mis-identified). The Dana collected eleven specimens, mainly from the eastern Atlantic, ranging from off South Africa north to Senegal, with one specimen from the Caribbean Sea and one from the South China Sea. The latter is a new record for the region. Specimens were collected from a range of depths with 1000 – 4000 mw, but mostly with 3000 mw.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD2AFFB68AA1F988FACD9E6D.taxon	description	(Figs. 18 – 19)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD2AFFB68AA1F988FACD9E6D.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. This species was described from three specimens, collected by the Armauer Hansen in the northeast Atlantic. A female, 7 mm (mature judging by the oostegites illustrated), from stn. 6, south of Lisbon (38 ° 20 ’ N 09 ° 20 ’ W), 2000 mw, 20 – 21 May 1922; and two juvenile males, 3 & 5 mm, from stn. 14, off Morocco (34 ° 41 ’ N 09 ° 30 ’ W), 2120 mw, 26 may 1922. The female was designated the holotype and all three specimens are in the collections of the Aquarium-Muséum de l‘Université de Liège, Belgium (RE 11976). The type female is still preserved in alcohol but the two males are now dry. Material examined. N. E. Atlantic: Female & female (ZMUC); near Madeira (33 ° 26 ’ N 16 ° 59 ’ W), Dana stns. 1142 VI & VII, 5000 & 4000 mw respectively, 15 October 1921. N. W. Atlantic: Female (USNM 1149246); “ United States ”, no more data. Female (ZMUC CRU- 9502); “ Groenland Möller 1847 ”, labelled as “ M. sphaericus ” and listed as M. loveni, specimen 15, by Stephensen & Pirlot (1931). S. Atlantic: Female (ZMUC CRU- 20420); tropical mid-Atlantic (00 ° 31 ’ S 11 ° 02 ’ W), Dana stn. 4000 IX, 3000 mw, 4 March 1930. N. E. Pacific: Male (ZMUC CRU- 20419); Gulf of Panama (06 ° 48 ’ N 80 ° 33 ’ W), Dana stn. 1208 V, 3000 mw, 16 January 1922. N. W. Pacific: male (SAMA C 6881, ex. JAMSTEC); Suruga Bay, Japan (34 ° 43.2 ’ N 138 ° 35.06 ’ E), 1967 m, submersible Shinkai 2000, Dive 1337, col. D. J. Lindsay, 7 April 2002.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD2AFFB68AA1F988FACD9E6D.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Females: Body length of mature specimens 8 – 19 mm. Pereon of mature specimens moderately inflated, due to slightly enlarged pereonites 1 – 5, becoming grossly inflated when ovigerous. Antennae 1 as long as head and first 1.5 pereonites combined (medially). Antennae 2 reduced to knob (? gland cone). Gnathopod 1; basis slightly shorter than remaining articles combined; carpus slightly shorter than propodus; propodus oval-shaped, armed with row of long, fine setae on anterior margin and with few long setae on posterior margin; dactyl a curved nail, almost half length propodus. Gnathopod 2; length about 1.3 x G 1; basis as long as remaining articles combined; propodus length about 1.5 x carpus, with few fine setae on distal margin; dactyl sharp, curved, length about 0.3 x propodus. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure with P 4 distinctly longer than P 3; merus very short, almost quadrangular, only slightly longer than ischium; carpus moderately broader than propodus, length 0.6 – 0.7 x basis; propodus slightly shorter than carpus; dactyl sharp, curved, length about 0.3 x propodus. Pereopods 5 – 7 stout, with shortened thicker articles. Pereopod 5; length almost 0.7 x P 4; basis as long as remaining articles combined; merus quadrate, slightly longer than ischium; carpus twice length merus, antero-distal corner with groove for propodus, approaching prehensile structure; propodus length 0.7 x carpus; dactyl a curved nail, almost half length propodus. Pereopod 6; length about 0.8 x P 5; articles similar in structure and relative lengths to P 5 except basis is relatively shorter accounting for most of the difference in length. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter and more slender than P 6; articles similar in structure and relative lengths to P 6 except propodus only slightly shorter than carpus. Uropoda with relatively slender peduncles and rami. Uropod 1; rami sub-equal in length, about 0.7 x length peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus slightly longer than outer, slightly shorter than peduncle. Uropod 3; rami and peduncle sub-equal in length; peduncle width about half length. Telson triangular; length about half peduncle of U 3. Males: Like females except for the following. Mature specimens not known, largest specimen 6.6 mm (recorded here). Pereon slightly arched, oval-shaped from dorsal aspect. Antennae 1 as long as head and first two pereonites combined; peduncular articles and callynophore relatively broader. Antennae 2 reduced in immature specimens. Pereopods 3 & 4; carpus relatively broader and slightly shorter than propodus; dactyl relatively long, slightly more than half propodus for P 3, and slightly less for P 4. Pereopods 5 – 7 all with carpus relatively longer compared to basis, and propodus relatively longer, only slightly shorter than carpus (P 5 & 6), or equal to it (P 7); dactyl length about half propodus. Uropod 1; inner ramus slightly longer than outer, almost as long as peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus slightly longer than peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus marginally longer than outer, about 1.5 x peduncle. Colour not known for living specimens.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD2AFFB68AA1F988FACD9E6D.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species is distinguished from all its congeners by the relatively short merus of pereopods 3 – 7, which is only slightly longer than the ischium, and the relatively strong, curved dactyls of the gnathopods and pereopods. Mimonectes gaussi and M. diomedeae also have pereopods 3 & 4 with a relatively short merus, but that of pereopods 5 – 7 is relatively much longer, the propodus is relatively long and narrow, and the dactyls are very short and thin. In M. spandlii the articles of pereopods 5 – 7 are relatively shorter and broader, and the propodus is not narrowed, and the propodus of the gnathopods lacks the distal projections characteristic of M. gaussi and M. diomedeae. One, poorly preserved, specimen in the ZMUC (CRU- 9502), labelled “ Groenland Möller 1847 ” and identified as “ M. sphaericus ” (? by Bovallius) is most likely this species, judging by the relatively short merus and the relatively strong dactyls of the pereopods. The structure of the gnathopods also precludes this specimen from being identified with M. sphaericus. From the limited records, this seems to be a relatively small species with females reaching sexual maturity at about 8 – 19 mm. The female specimen illustrated here (fig. 18), measuring only 8.2 mm, seems to be mature judging by the well-developed oostegites. An immature male (?) specimen (6.6 mm) from Suruga Bay, Japan (SAMA C 6881), captured by submersible, was found in association with the hydromedusan Voragonema tatsunoko (see Lindsay & Pagès 2010).	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD2AFFB68AA1F988FACD9E6D.taxon	distribution	Distribution. This seems to be a very rare species. Apart from the types, there are only four literature records of specimens captured, including the probable mis-identification of Vinogradov (1964), amounting to a total of only twelve specimens, eight of them juveniles. Pirlot (1939) recorded three juveniles from the north-eastern Atlantic, near the Azores and south of Portugal, from a depth of 0 – 3000 m; Shoemaker (1945) recorded three females from the north-western Atlantic, off Bermuda; Vinogradov (1964) recorded two juveniles from the tropical Indian Ocean, near the Seychelles, in depths of 2120 – 3131 m & 1940 – 3315 m and Lindsay and Pagès (2010) record a juvenile male from Suruga Bay, Japan, collected by submersible from 1969 m. The Dana collected three specimens from the Atlantic, with 3000 – 5000 mw, and one specimen from the Gulf of Panama with 3000 mw.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD27FFB08AA1F8D4FEE79E49.taxon	description	(Figs. 20 – 21)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD27FFB08AA1F8D4FEE79E49.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Holotype. Female, 7.3 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20421); north-east Atlantic, Bay of Biscay (46 ° 28 ’ N 08 ° 01 ’ W), Dana stn. 4158 XXII, 5500 mw, 18 June 1930. Mouthparts mounted on microscope slide; remainder in spirit. Allotype. Male, 5.3 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20422); Indo-Pacific, Banda Sea (05 ° 52 ’ S 131 ° 14 ’ E), Dana stn. 3676 IX, 3000 mw, 23 March 1929. Paratypes. Female, 5.6 mm, with well-developed oostegites (ZMUC CRU- 20423); central eastern Pacific, Gulf of Panama (06 ° 48 ’ N 80 ° 33 ’ W), Dana stn. 1208 VI, 2500 mw, 16 January 1922. Male, 4.3 mm, mature (SAMA C 7015, ex. JAMSTEC); Sagami Bay, Japan (34 ° 50 ’ N 139 ° 36 ’ E), R / V Kaiyo stn. IO 60320 A- 3 (cruise KY 06 – 03), 700 – 800 m, col. D. J. Lindsay, 20 March 2006.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD27FFB08AA1F8D4FEE79E49.taxon	description	Description of holotype (Fig. 20). Female, 7.3 mm; mature judging by the well-developed oostegites. Pereon moderately inflated, due to enlargement of pereonites 1 – 5. Antennae 1 (tip missing) about as long as head and first three pereonites combined (medially). Antennae 2 much reduced, consisting of four small articles. Gnathopod 1; basis almost as long as remaining articles combined; carpus broader and slightly longer than propodus, with broad distal margin; propodus with postero-distal corner produced into sharp process, as long as, and over-lapping dactyl; dactyl slender, length about 0.2 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 slightly longer and more slender than G 1; basis almost as long as remaining articles combined; carpus length about two-thirds propodus and slightly broader; propodus tapering distally with postero-distal projection as for G 1; dactyl length slightly less than 0.2 x propodus. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure, with P 3 marginally longer; merus relatively short, length about one-third basis, slightly less than twice ischium, or about half propodus, with antero-distal corner slightly produced forward; carpus sub-equal in length to propodus; dactyl slightly curved, length about 0.3 x propodus. Pereopod 5 relatively short, about 0.8 x P 4; basis length slightly less than twice carpus; merus slightly longer than carpus; propodus length 1.4 x carpus; dactyl a short curved nail. Pereopod 6 slightly shorter than P 5, with articles of similar proportions, except for the propodus, which is equal in length to the carpus. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 6 and with slightly thicker articles; basis slightly longer than that of P 6, about 2.5 x carpus; merus length 0.7 x carpus; propodus slightly shorter than carpus; dactyl a robust, curved nail, almost half length propodus. Uropoda with relatively slender peduncles and rami; all with inner ramus distinctly longer than outer and marginally longer than peduncle. Uropod 1; inner ramus length about 1.6 x outer. Uropod 2; inner ramus length about 1.5 x outer. Uropod 3; inner ramus length about 1.3 x outer; peduncle width 0.3 x length. Telson triangular; length about 0.3 x peduncle of U 3. Description of allotype (Fig. 21). Male, 5.3 mm; mature judging by the numerous aesthetascs on A 1 and the well-developed genital papillae. Cuticle relatively thick, opaque. Pereon relatively broad, widest anteriorly, gradually narrowing distally, with width of pereonite 7 about 0.6 x that of pereonite 1. Pereonites 6 & 7 and pleonites with slight dorsal keel. Antennae 1 slightly longer than head and pereon combined. Antennae 2 only slightly longer than peduncle of A 1, consisting of only three articles with a long terminal seta. Gnathopod 1 similar to female holotype but with more slender articles; propodus slightly longer than carpus, anterior margin armed with numerous long setae; dactyl length slightly more than 0.3 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 similar to female holotype but with basis relatively shorter. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure, with P 3 marginally longer; all articles relatively broader than in female; merus with antero-distal bulge, length about half basis or about 1.5 x ischium, or about 0.7 x propodus; propodus marginally longer than carpus; dactyl slightly curved, length slightly more than 0.3 x propodus. Pereopods 5 – 7 similar to female holotype. Uropoda similar to female holotype but slightly less slender; peduncle of U 3 relatively shorter, and telson less pointed, length about 0.4 x peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimens.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD27FFB08AA1F8D4FEE79E49.taxon	etymology	Etymology. This species is named to honour Dr C. G. Alexander (recently deceased) formerly Senior Lecturer, James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, who first introduced me to the fascinating realm of hyperiidean amphipods.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD27FFB08AA1F8D4FEE79E49.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species is readily distinguished from all its congeners by the postero-distal projection of the propodus of the gnathopods. In this respect, it also resembles M. gaussi and M. diomedeae, which have similar projections, but on both sides of the dactyl, with the anterior one being the more prominent. It also resembles M. spandlii in having pereopods 3 & 4 with a relatively short merus, and pereopods 3 – 7 with strong dactyls, but differs mainly in the structure of the gnathopods and the relatively longer merus of pereopods 5 – 7. The male is unlike any of the previous species, but like the following two, in having a thick, opaque cuticle, an anteriorly broadened pereon, a broad head (viewed dorsally), and much reduced second antennae. The structure of pereopod 7, especially the almost falcate dactyl, is very similar to Pseudomimonectes robustus, and initially I thought that this species might also belong to this genus, but the mandible is without a palp, and the lacinia mobilis is narrower than the incisor (fig. 20), characters consistent with Mimonectes. This seems to be a relatively small species. All four specimens examined seem to be mature, judging by the well-developed oostegites of the females (7.3, 5.6 mm), and the well-developed aesthetascs of the first antennae, and well-developed genital papillae of the males (4.3, 5.3 mm).	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD27FFB08AA1F8D4FEE79E49.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known only from the Bay of Biscay, Banda Sea, Sagami Bay, Japan and the Gulf of Panama, as detailed above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD20FFAC8AA1F94BFC669A7A.taxon	description	(Figs. 22 – 23)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD20FFAC8AA1F94BFC669A7A.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Holotype. Female, 8.3 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20424); tropical eastern Atlantic, west of Gulf of Guinea (00 ° 31 ’ S 11 ° 02 ’ W), Dana stn. 4000 VII, 5000 mw, 4 March 1930. Allotype. Male, 6.8 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20425); as above but stn. 4000 VIII, 4000 mw.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD20FFAC8AA1F94BFC669A7A.taxon	description	Description of holotype (fig. 22). Female, 8.3 mm; immature judging by the under-developed oostegites. Pereon moderately inflated, due to enlargement of pereonites 1 – 5. Antennae 1 about as long as head and first pereonite combined (medially). Antennae 2 much reduced, consisting of six short articles in addition to the gland cone. Gnathopod 1; basis almost as long as remaining articles combined; propodus sub-equal in length to carpus with several setae on both margins for distal two-thirds; dactyl relatively strong, length almost half propodus. Gnathopod 2 slightly longer and more slender than G 1, otherwise similar to G 1 in structure and relative lengths of articles. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure, with P 3 marginally longer mainly due to the relatively longer basis; basis length 2.2 x merus for P 3, 1.8 x merus for P 4; merus length almost 0.8 x carpus; propodus length 0.8 x carpus for P 3, not quite 0.7 x carpus for P 4; dactyl strong, curved nail, length slightly more than 0.2 x propodus. Pereopod 5 slightly shorter than P 4; basis length almost twice merus; carpus a little shorter than merus; propodus length about 0.6 x carpus; dactyl a strong, short, curved nail. Pereopod 6 slightly shorter than P 5; basis length about twice merus; carpus slightly longer than merus; propodus length 0.6 x carpus; dactyl as for P 5. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 6, with slightly thicker articles; merus relatively short, only slightly longer than 0.3 x basis; carpus length about twice merus; propodus length about 0.7 x carpus; dactyl as for P 5. Uropoda slightly damaged, with relatively slender peduncles and rami; all with inner ramus distinctly longer than outer and slightly longer than peduncle. Uropod 1; inner ramus length 1.2 x outer. Uropoda 2 & 3 damaged; peduncle width of uropod 3 about half length. Telson triangular; length about half peduncle of U 3. Description of allotype (fig. 23). Male, 6.8 mm; mature judging by the numerous aesthetascs on A 1 and the well-developed genital papillae. Cuticle relatively thick, opaque. Pereon relatively broad, widest anteriorly, gradually tapering distally, with pereonite 7 only half as wide as pereonite 1. All pereonites with medial furrow, that of pereonite one the deepest, becoming less prominent and more dorsally orientated towards pereonite 7. Head with lateral cup-like structure over-lapping base of A 1. Antennae 1 almost as long as head and pereon combined. Antennae 2 reduced to one tiny article. Gnathopod 1 similar to female holotype, but articles more elongate; basis length about 1.2 x carpus; propodus length 0.8 x carpus, with numerous long setae on anterior margin and several stronger setae on posterior margin; dactyl relatively strong, length about one-third propodus. Gnathopod 2 similar to female holotype but slightly shorter than G 1; basis length about 1.5 x carpus; propodus sub-equal in length to carpus; dactyl more slender than for G 1 but of similar length. Pereopod 3 is clearly the longest pereopod, almost 1.2 x P 4; basis length 1.5 x merus, equal to carpus; propodus length about 0.8 x carpus; dactyl relatively slender, length almost 0.3 x propodus. Pereopod 4; basis slightly longer than carpus, about 1.4 x merus; propodus slightly shorter than carpus; dactyl as for P 3. Pereopod 5 slightly longer than P 4; basis length almost 1.7 x merus; carpus and merus similar in length; propodus length 0.7 x carpus; dactyl a short, strong nail. Pereopod 6 slightly shorter than P 5 but all articles of similar relative lengths. Pereopod 7 similar in length to P 6; basis length almost 2.5 x merus; carpus length 1.5 x merus; propodus length about 0.6 x carpus; dactyl like that of P 5 & 6. Uropoda with relatively slender peduncles and rami; all with inner ramus distinctly longer than peduncle and outer ramus; especially U 1 & 2. Uropod 1; inner ramus length about twice outer, and 1.7 x peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.6 x outer, about 1.3 x peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length about 1.3 x outer, slightly longer than peduncle; peduncle width slightly more than one-third length. Telson triangular, length slightly more than 0.3 x peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimens.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD20FFAC8AA1F94BFC669A7A.taxon	etymology	Etymology. This species is named for Dr C. O. Coleman, Curator of Crustacea, Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, in recognition for his considerable assistance, in many ways, to facilitate my studies of hyperiidean amphipods.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD20FFAC8AA1F94BFC669A7A.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species is most similar to M. loveni and M. spandlii in having simple gnathopods, without projections adjacent to the dactyls, or postero-distal excavations on the propodus (e. g. M. sphaericus). It is readily distinguished from M. loveni by several characters, but mainly by the structure of the gnathopods which are much less setose and more slender, and by the strong dactyls of the gnathopods and pereopods. It is easily distinguished from M. spandlii by the relatively longer merus of the pereopods. In addition, males are distinguished by the general habitus and the thick, opaque cuticle. In this regard, males resemble M. alexanderi, but M. colemani is distinguished by the gnathopods (propodus lacking postero-distal projection), the pereonite furrows, and the cuplike structure at the base of the first antennae. This may also be a relatively small species because, although the female (8.3 mm) is immature, the male (6.8 mm) seems to be mature, based on the numerous aesthetascs on the first antennae and the well-developed genital papillae. However, it is interesting to note that the second antennae of the male are much reduced, unlike most other species of Mimonectes. Thus, it is possible that, despite some secondary sexual characteristics being welldeveloped, the allotype may be immature.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD20FFAC8AA1F94BFC669A7A.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known only from the type locality, as detailed above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3DFFA88AA1FAA8FAF29EDA.taxon	description	(Figs. 24 – 26)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3DFFA88AA1FAA8FAF29EDA.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Holotype. Female, 9.7 mm (SAMA C 7061, ex. JAMSTEC). Sagami Bay, Japan (34 ° 50 ’ N 139 ° 36 ’ E), R / V Kaiyo stn. IO 60320 A- 4 (cruise KY 06 – 03), 600 – 700 m, col. D. J. Lindsay, 20 March 2006. Allotype. Male, 4.5 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20427). South-eastern tropical Pacific, off Panama (00 ° 18 ’ S 99 ° 07 ’ W), Dana stn. 3558 II, 3000 mw, 18 September 1928. Paratype. Female, 5.5 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20426). South-west Pacific, Tasman Sea (33 ° 26 ’ S 157 ° 02 ’ E), Dana stn. 3656 IV, 2000 mw, 29 January 1929. Other material examined. Juvenile male, in poor condition (SAMA C 6882). North-east Pacific, south-west of Vancouver Island (48 ° 0.77 ’ N 126 ° 17.42 ’ W), ex M. Galbraith, stn. LB 16 (cruise 10 S 0614), 1000 – 600 m, 18 September 2006.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3DFFA88AA1FAA8FAF29EDA.taxon	description	Description of holotype (fig. 24). Female, 9.7 mm, mature judging by the well-developed oostegites. Pereon marginally inflated. Antennae 1 (terminal articles missing) as long as head and first 2.5 pereonites combined (medially). Antennae 2 reduced to small knob. Gnathopod 1; basis length about twice carpus, slightly longer than propodus; carpus with few long setae on distal corners; propodus with two pairs of relatively strong setae on palm, near posterior margin; dactyl relatively strong, pressed against palm of propodus, between row of strong setae, length marginally more than 0.4 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 similar to G 1 in structure but slightly longer; basis length twice carpus, 1.2 x propodus; carpus with few long setae on distal corners; propodus like G 1 but with two additional strong setae medially, on posterior margin, and with slight postero-distal excavation; dactyl relatively strong, pressed against palm, length almost 0.4 x propodus. Pereopod 3 the longest, marginally longer than P 4; basis length about twice merus, slightly longer than carpus; merus with antero-distal corner slightly produced; propodus length almost 0.9 x carpus; dactyl relatively strong, length marginally less than 0.2 x propodus. Pereopod 4; basis length about 1.8 x merus, and 1.3 x carpus; merus with antero-distal corner slightly produced; propodus slightly shorter than carpus; dactyl like that of P 3. Pereopod 5 marginally longer than P 6, slightly shorter than P 4, both similar in relative lengths of articles; basis length about twice merus; carpus marginally longer than merus; propodus length about 0.8 x carpus; dactyl a strong, short, curved nail. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 6; basis length about 4 x merus; merus slightly inflated relative to basis, with slight postero-distal bulge; carpus slightly inflated relative to basis or propodus, length 2.7 x merus; propodus length about half carpus; dactyl as for P 6. Uropoda with relatively slender peduncles and rami; all with inner ramus distinctly longer than outer and peduncle, especially U 1 & 2. Rami all with slightly serrated margins. Uropod 1; inner ramus length almost twice outer and peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.5 x outer, and 1.7 x peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length 1.2 x outer, about 1.5 x peduncle; peduncle width half length. Telson triangular, length 1.2 x width, about half peduncle of U 3. Description of allotype (figs. 25 – 26). Male, 4.5 mm; mature judging by the numerous aesthetascs on A 1 and well-developed genital papillae. Cuticle relatively thick, opaque. Pereon relatively broad, widest anteriorly, tapering distally, with pereonite 7 only half as wide as pereonite 1. All pereonites with slight furrow dorsally, becoming less prominent posteriorly, that of pereonites 5 – 7 barely discernible. Antennae 1 slightly longer than head and pereon combined. Antennae 2 reduced to one tiny article. Gnathopod 1; basis length 1.3 – 1.4 x carpus, slightly longer than propodus; carpus with few long setae on distal corners and two on anterior margin; propodus with several long setae along anterior margin, posterior margin with row of relatively strong, paired setae and slight distal excavation; dactyl relatively strong, able to be pressed against palm of propodus, between row of strong setae, length about 0.4 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 similar to G 1 in structure and length; basis length 1.6 – 1.7 x carpus, slightly longer than propodus; carpus with few long setae on distal corners; propodus like G 1 but without long setae on anterior margin; dactyl pressed against palm, length 0.3 x propodus. Pereopod 3 the longest pereopod, almost 1.2 x P 4; basis length about 1.5 x merus, slightly longer than carpus; merus with antero-distal corner slightly produced; propodus length almost 0.8 x carpus; dactyl relatively strong, length about 0.2 x propodus. Pereopod 4; basis slightly shorter than carpus, about 1.3 x merus; merus with antero-distal corner slightly produced; propodus length slightly more than 0.7 x carpus; dactyl like that of P 3. Pereopods 5 & 6 similar in length and relative lengths of articles, slightly shorter than P 4; basis length 1.6 x merus; carpus marginally shorter than merus; propodus slightly shorter than carpus; dactyl a short, curved nail. Pereopod 7 marginally shorter than P 6; basis length about 2.4 x merus; merus with slight postero-distal bulge; carpus length 1.6 x merus; propodus marginally longer than merus; dactyl a strong, short, curved nail. Uropoda with relatively slender peduncles and rami; all with inner ramus distinctly longer than outer and peduncle, especially that of U 1 & 2. Rami all with slightly serrated margins. Uropod 1; inner ramus length about twice outer and peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.5 x outer, about twice peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length 1.2 x outer, about 1.8 x peduncle; peduncle width about half length. Telson triangular, slightly longer than wide, about 0.6 x length peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimens.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3DFFA88AA1FAA8FAF29EDA.taxon	etymology	Etymology. Combination of the Greek, neos = new, acknowledging the similarity of this species to M. sphaericus.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3DFFA88AA1FAA8FAF29EDA.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The general habitus and thick cuticle of the allotype is like the males of the previous two species, but it is readily distinguished from both by the structure of the gnathopods. In addition, it differs from M. colemani in that it lacks the cup-like structure on the head, at the base of the first antennae, the pereonite furrows are much less distinct, and the telson is relatively much longer. The structure of the gnathopods bear some resemblance to M. sphaericus, and one might have considered it a variant of this species. Apart from several other minor characters that separate the two, the main ones are that in M. neosphaericus the postero-distal excavation of the propodus of the second gnathopods is only slight, the merus of pereopod 7 is relatively short, and the pereopods have relatively stronger dactyls. In addition, males are readily distinguished by the habitus and thick cuticle, and the telson is also relatively longer. Females are more difficult to distinguish from M. sphaericus, but the much stronger dactyls of the pereopods seems to be a consistent character. In M. sphaericus the dactyls are semi-colon-shaped and relatively fine, whereas in M. neosphaericus they are a strong, relatively thick, short nail, particularly for pereopod 7.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3DFFA88AA1FAA8FAF29EDA.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known only from the Pacific Ocean; in the north-west from Sagami Bay, in the south-west, from the Tasman Sea, in the south-east, off Panama and in the north-east, off Vancouver Island, as detailed above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD39FFA88AA1FE08FBFC9B72.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Pseudomimonectes robustus Vinogradov, 1960 by monotypy.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD39FFA88AA1FE08FBFC9B72.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. As with the characters of the family, with the following additions. Known only from one immature specimen. Cuticle relatively thin, translucent. Eyes absent. Antennae 1; peduncle three-articulate. Mandible with rudimentary, one-articulate palp; lacinia mobilis marginally wider than incisor. Maxilliped with weakly developed outer lobes. Pereopods with relatively strong, curved dactyls; that of P 7 especially strong and falcate. Uropoda not especially lanceolate; rami with rounded tips. One species.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD39FFA88AA1FE08FBFC9B72.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This genus was established by Vinogradov (1960) to accommodate his new species P. robustus which, although described from a unique, immature specimen, very similar to species of Mimonectes, possesses characters that preclude it from that genus, as detailed in the key and diagnosis above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD39FFAA8AA1FBA0FB4F9E49.taxon	description	(Fig. 27)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD39FFAA8AA1FBA0FB4F9E49.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. This species was described from one, immature specimen (sex unknown), 4.5 mm in length, from the Pacific Ocean, in the Ryukyu Trench (27 ° 49 ’ S 130 ° 37 ’ W), Vityaz stn. 3528, 4080 – 5500 m, 28 October 1958. The unique holotype is in the ZMMU (Mb- 1061).	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD39FFAA8AA1FBA0FB4F9E49.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. According to Vinogradov (1960) and Vinogradov et al. (1982). Known only from the unique holotype. Pereon slightly inflated. Antennae 1 relatively robust; about as long as head and first 2.5 pereonites combined (medially). Antennae 2 much reduced, consisting of four small articles; as long as peduncle of A 1. Gnathopod 1; basis almost as long as remaining articles combined; carpus with broad distal margin, slightly shorter than propodus; dactyl short, curved. Gnathopod 2 slightly longer and more slender than G 1; otherwise similar in structure. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure and length; basis length equal to merus and carpus combined; merus length about two-thirds carpus; propodus slightly longer than carpus; dactyl relatively strong, curved, length about 0.2 x propodus. Pereopod 5 sub-equal in length to P 4 and more slender; basis with slight bulge mid-way on distal margin, length about 1.7 x merus; carpus slightly longer than merus and propodus; merus and propodus similar in length; dactyl relatively strong, marginally longer than 0.2 x propodus. Pereopod 6; length about 0.8 x P 5; basis length about 1.8 x merus; carpus slightly longer than merus; propodus as long as carpus, with slight bulge mid-way on anterior margin; dactyl relatively strong, curved, length about 0.3 x propodus. Pereopod 7 with relatively broad articles; length about 0.8 x P 6; basis about twice as long as wide, almost 3 x length merus; carpus bulging anteroproximally, narrowed distally, about 1.6 x length merus; propodus slightly longer and more slender than carpus, with slight bulge mid-way on anterior margin; dactyl strong and falcate, length almost one-third propodus. Uropoda with slender, but not particularly lanceolate rami, with rounded tips. Uropod 1; inner ramus length twice outer, similar in length to peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1,8 x outer, marginally longer than peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length almost 1.4 x outer, as long as peduncle; peduncle width 0.4 x length. Telson ovaltriangular, length marginally more than one-third peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimen.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD39FFAA8AA1FBA0FB4F9E49.taxon	discussion	Remarks. I have not seen any specimens of this species and have been unable to examine the unique holotype, but accept its validity based on the observations of Vinogradov (1960). The one-articulate palp, and relatively broad lacinia mobilis of the mandibles, readily distinguishes this species, and the genus, from other members of the family. Otherwise it is very similar to Mimonectes. In having simple gnathopods and relatively strong dactyls, it resembles M. spandlii, but is readily distinguished by the relatively longer merus of pereopods 3 – 6. It is also similar to M. colemani, but in that species the dactyls are not as strong, and that of pereopod 7 is not falcate, and pereopods 6 & 7 lack the bulge mid-way on the anterior margin of the propodus. The structure of pereopod 7 is also similar to M. alexanderi, and initially I thought that this species might also belong to Pseudomimonectes but the mandibles lack the characteristic one-articulate palp (fig. 27).	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD39FFAA8AA1FBA0FB4F9E49.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known only from the type locality, from the unique holotype, as detailed above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3BFFAA8AA1FE79FE729BE5.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Cheloscina antennula Shih & Hendrycks, 1996 by monotypy.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3BFFAA8AA1FE79FE729BE5.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. As with the characters of the family, with the following additions. Known only from one immature female specimen. Cuticle relatively thin, translucent. Eyes absent. Antennae 1; peduncle two-articulate; callynophore and first terminal article with enormous aesthetasc near distal corner; callynophore relatively short, sub-equal in length to first peduncular article; terminal three articles relatively long, together 2.6 x length callynophore. Mandibles without palp; lacinia mobilis slightly narrower than incisor; most inferior tooth of incisor similar to other teeth and not separated by gap. Maxilliped with well-developed outer lobes. Gnathopods weakly sub-chelate and prehensile. Pereopods with relatively strong, curved dactyls. Uropoda with relatively slender, lanceolate rami. One species.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3BFFAA8AA1FE79FE729BE5.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This genus was established by Shih & Hendrycks (1996), within the family Proscinidae, to accommodate their new species C. antennula which, although described from a unique immature specimen, possessed characters that precluded it from Proscina and Mimoscina, the only two genera in the family at the time. The genus is here transferred to the family Mimonectidae because the status of the family Proscinidae, and also the genus Proscina, cannot be maintained (see earlier). It is readily distinguished from Mimoscina in lacking pereopods with retractile dactyls and from Mimonectes, Pseudomimonectes, and species previously described as belonging to Proscina, by the unusual structure of the first antennae. Apart from the first antennae, Cheloscina is most similar to Mimonectes.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3BFFA48AA1FB10FB549904.taxon	description	(Fig. 28)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3BFFA48AA1FB10FB549904.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. This species was described from one immature female specimen, 2.7 mm in length (head to end of inner ramus of U 3), from the North Pacific, off the Alaskan Peninsula (53 ° 20 ’ N 155 ° 16 ’ W), 700 – 900 m, 13 April 1930. The unique holotype is in the USNM (264247); mouthparts and appendages from right side, including telson, mounted on microscope slide, remainder in alcohol. Material examined. The unique holotype as detailed above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3BFFA48AA1FB10FB549904.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Following examination of female holotype, 2.7 mm, and according to Shih & Hendrycks (1996). Pereon not inflated. Head broadly rounded dorsally, without rostrum. Antennae 1 as long as head and first four pereonites combined (medially); of unusual structure with short callynophore, sub-equal in length to first peduncular article; terminal articles relatively long, together 2.6 x length callynophore, the first about half length the second, and the second about half length the third, elongate terminal article; callynophore and first terminal article with enormous aesthetasc near distal corner. Antennae 2 reduced to small knob. Gnathopod 1; basis length twice carpus, slightly shorter than propodus; propodus narrowing distally, posterior margin slightly excavated for distal half and forming palm with dactyl, bearing two pairs of robust setae near the middle, both margins (especially posterior) prolonged distally to form process at base of dactyl; dactyl relatively strong, curved, length slightly more than 0.4 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 similar in structure and length to G 1. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure, with P 4 marginally shorter; basis length about twice merus; carpus length 1.6 x merus; propodus length 1.2 x carpus; dactyl relatively strong, curved, length about 0.3 x propodus. Pereopod 5 slightly shorter than P 4; basis length twice merus; carpus length 1.4 x merus; propodus length 1.3 x carpus; dactyl relatively strong, curved, length almost 0.3 x propodus. Pereopod 6 similar in length and structure to P 5. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 6, with marginally broader articles, especially carpus and merus; basis length 2.3 x merus, similar in length to carpus and propodus; merus relatively short, with broad distal margin, about 0.8 x length; carpus slightly broader than other articles; dactyl relatively strong, curved, length 0.3 x propodus. Uropoda with slender, relatively long, lanceolate rami with serrated margins; all with inner ramus distinctly longer than outer and much longer than peduncle, especially U 1 & 2. Uropod 1; inner ramus length 1.8 x outer, and 3.6 x peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.7 x outer, and 3.4 x peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus length 1.2 x outer, and 2.8 x peduncle; peduncle width 0.5 x length. Telson with rounded apex, 1.4 x as long as broad, about 0.6 x length of peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimen.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3BFFA48AA1FB10FB549904.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The most distinguishing character of this species, and the genus, is the structure of the first antennae. Apart from the enormous aesthetascs, the callynophore is relatively short, whereas in all other species of the family (and even most of the species of the superfamily) it is by far the longest and largest article. In having gnathopods with excavations on the posterior margin of the propodus, this species also resembles Mimonectes sphaericus and M. neosphaericus, but the excavation is of a different structure, and except for gnathopod 2 of males of M. sphaericus, the carpus is relatively shorter. In addition, this species has uropoda with more slender and longer rami, and in M. sphaericus the dactyls are much weaker. The possibility that the characters of the first antennae and gnathopoda of C. antennula are juvenile characters of M. sphaericus was not supported by the examination of juvenile specimens of M. sphaericus.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3BFFA48AA1FB10FB549904.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known only from the type locality, from the unique holotype, as detailed above. Family MIMOSCINIDAE fam. nov.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3BFFA48AA1FB10FB549904.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Sexually mature specimens not known. Largest recorded female, 9.0 mm (or 20 mm if Sphaeromimonectes scinoides Woltereck, 1906 is accepted as a species of Mimoscina). Largest male recorded, 8.2 mm. Head rarely as long as first pereonite, with slight, rounded rostrum. Eyes absent. Pereon of females moderately inflated, mainly due to enlargement of pereonites 1 – 5. Pereon of males slender. Pereonites all separate. Coxae separate from pereonites. Antennae 1 as long as head and first four pereonites combined in females, almost as long as head and pereon in males; callynophore stout; three short terminal articles, the terminal one longer than the previous two combined; peduncle two-articulate. Antennae 2 reduced in females and immature males; sometimes as long, or longer, than A 1 in some male specimens. Mandibles with well-developed lacinia mobilis (left), slightly narrower than incisor; most inferior tooth of incisor more pointed and slightly offset from other teeth. Maxillae with broad palp, armed with few setae distally; outer lobe broad, armed with five strong setae, three distally and a smaller one either side; inner lobe with broad distal margin, armed with numerous fine setae. Maxillae 2 with relatively slender lobes of similar length, armed with 2 – 3 strong setae distally. Maxilliped with broad, rounded outer lobes, with strong setae along margin; inner lobes relatively narrow, separate, marginally exceeding half length outer lobes. Gnathopods simple, relatively slender. Pereopods 3 & 4 with normal dactyls. Pereopods 5 – 7 often very slender and much longer than P 3 & 4, with very small, retractile dactyls. Urosomite 2 – 3 with partial suture ventrally. Uropoda slender, with articulated rami. Telson length 0.3 – 0.5 x peduncle of U 3; with rounded apex. Gills on pereonites 2 – 6. Oostegites on pereonites 2 – 5. One genus: Mimoscina.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD3BFFA48AA1FB10FB549904.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This family is proposed here to accommodate the genus Mimoscina following a review of the family Proscinidae presented earlier. It is distinguished from all other families of the Scinoidea by the relatively slender pereopods 5 – 7, with their relatively small, retractile dactyls. Additional characters that distinguish the family are as follows; the head has a slight, rounded rostrum; the outer margin of the peduncle of uropod 1 is noticeably convex, and may be fringed with stout or long setae; the telson is rounded terminally, not triangular or pointed, and the most inferior tooth of the incisor of the mandible is sharper than the others, and is not separated by a large gap, as found in Mimonectes, but is slightly offset from the others. Contrary to literature records, I have found that even very immature female specimens have a slightly inflated pereon, and in the largest specimen examined (about 9 mm), although still immature, the pereon is moderately inflated, mainly due to the enlargement of pereonites 1 – 5, as found in some species of M imonectes.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD35FFA58AA1F931FD7E9CB1.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Mimoscina gracilipes Pirlot, 1933 by monotypy.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD35FFA58AA1F931FD7E9CB1.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. As with the characters of the family with the following additions. Cuticle relatively thin, translucent, with distinct hexagonal markings. Callynophore of A 1 triangular in cross-section, with slightly serrated margins. Coxae relatively small. Maxillae 1 with relatively broad palp, relatively shorter than in Mimonectes. Uropoda; rami with slightly serrated margins; outer margin of peduncle, and sometimes base of outer ramus, of U 1, with fringe of minute or longer setae. Sexual dimorphism. Females, even when immature, have a slightly inflated pereon which seems to become more inflated with maturity, although the extent of the inflation is not known because fully mature females have not been recorded, except for the questionable record of Sphaeromimonectes scinoides (Woltereck 1906). Males have a relatively slender body, the first antennae are relatively longer, and the second antennae of mature males are longer than the first. Males also seem to have relatively longer and larger pereopods and uropoda than females of similar size (compare figs. 33 & 34). In addition, the propodus of gnathopod 1 is armed with more numerous long setae, the merus and carpus of pereopod 7 is not swollen, and the telson is relatively shorter than in females.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD35FFA58AA1F931FD7E9CB1.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This genus was established by Pirlot (1933), while erecting the family Proscinidae, to accommodate his new species, M. gracilipes, distinguished from Proscina (sensu lato) by the retractile dactyls of pereopods 5 – 7. Parascina setosa Barnard, 1930, transferred to the genus Mimonectes by Stephensen & Pirlot (1931) was later recognised as a species of Mimoscina by Vinogradov (1962), following the discovery of more material. Prior to this study, the above two species were known only from three specimens each (excluding the record of Mori et al. 2010). The Dana collections provide another 19 specimens (15 females, 4 males) of Mimoscina, and two additional specimens from the north-eastern Pacific were kindly sent to me by Moira Galbraith, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, B. C., Canada. A detailed examination of this material revealed that only one specimen, from the South China Sea (fig. 30), could be assigned to M. gracilipes, while the remainder represent a similar, but distinctive, new species. Mimoscina setosa, a species which seems to be restricted to Antarctic waters (Zeidler & De Broyer 2009) was not represented amongst the new material examined and, apart from the type, I have not seen any other specimens. Thus, three species of Mimoscina are recognised in this review.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD34FFA08AA1FA9AFC039842.taxon	description	(Figs. 29 – 31)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD34FFA08AA1FA9AFC039842.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. This species was described from an immature female, measuring about 8.0 mm (head to end of inner ramus of U 3), from the north-east Atlantic, off Portugal (41 ° 29 ’ N 15 ° 44 ’ W), Princesse Alice II stn. 2882, 0 – 2000 m, 10 August 1909. The unique holotype is in the MOM (372131). Material examined. Female in poor condition (ZMUC CRU- 20428); South China Sea (06 ° 55 ’ N 114 ° 02 ’ E), Dana stn. 3688 III, 3000 mw, 8 April 1929. Mouthparts mounted on microscope slide, remainder in spirit.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD34FFA08AA1FA9AFC039842.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Known only from immature female specimens, 4.5 – 9.0 mm. Pereon slightly inflated. Antennae 1 slightly shorter than head and first four pereonites combined; callynophore stout, with serrated margins. Antennae 2 reduced in length, slightly more than 0.2 x A 1, consisting of several elongate articles, the third is the longest. Gnathopod 1; basis length 0.7 x remaining articles combined, 1.4 – 1.5 x carpus; propodus length 0.8 x (or more) carpus, armed with long, fine setae on both margins and medially; dactyl relatively straight, thin, length about onequarter propodus. Gnathopod 2 similar to G 1 in length and structure; basis length 0.7 x remaining articles combined, 1.6 – 1.8 x carpus; propodus slightly longer than carpus; dactyl as for G 1. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in length and structure; basis length 1.5 – 1.6 x merus; merus broadened distally with antero-distal corner produced over carpus; carpus slightly longer than merus; propodus sub-equal in length to carpus; dactyl very short, thin, slightly curved. Pereopods 5 – 7 all relatively long and slender, with thin articles, and very small, fully retractile dactyls. Pereopod 5; length 1.4 x P 4; basis length 1.4 – 1.5 x merus; carpus length slightly more than 0.6 x merus; propodus length 0.7 – 0.8 x carpus. Pereopod 6 similar in length to P 5; basis length 1.3 – 1.5 x merus; carpus length 0.4 x merus; propodus length 0.6 – 0.8 x carpus. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 6; basis length 1.3 x merus; carpus length about half merus; propodus length slightly more than 0.7 x carpus. Uropoda with lanceolate rami, with serrated margins; all with rami of similar length but distinctly longer than peduncle. Uropod 1; rami length 1.7 x peduncle; outer margin of peduncle with several, very short, fine setae for distal half. Uropod 2; rami length 1.5 x peduncle; outer margin of peduncle armed with setae as for U 1. Uropod 3; rami length twice peduncle; peduncle width about 0.3 x length. Telson with rounded apex, about as wide as long, or slightly wider than long, length half (or slightly less) peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimens.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD34FFA08AA1FA9AFC039842.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species is readily distinguished from the following two congeners by the relatively long, slender pereopods 5 – 7, and by the relatively longer merus of pereopod 7. Apart from the type, there are only three previous records of this species, Vinogradov (1960), from the tropical Pacific (immature female, 7.0 mm); Vinogradov (1964) from the Arabian Sea (immature female, 4.5 mm) and Mori et al. (2010) from off Kamogawa, Japan. The Dana only collected one damaged female specimen, about 9.0 mm, from the South China Sea.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD34FFA08AA1FA9AFC039842.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Recorded from the north-eastern Atlantic (type locality); the tropical Pacific, north-east of the Kermadec Islands (27 ° 15 ’ S 175 ° 31 ’ W), Vityaz stn. 3826, 0 – 6900 m; the northern Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea region (16 ° 50 ’ N 62 ° 21 ’ E), Vityaz stn. 4721, 1900 – 3750 m; off Kamogawa, Japan and the South China Sea as detailed above. The later is a new record for the genus for that region.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD30FFA28AA1FF60FC359A7A.taxon	description	(Fig. 32)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD30FFA28AA1FF60FC359A7A.taxon	description	(distribution map). non — Mori et al. 2010: 3 (list), 8 (list) (here re-determined as Mimonectes gaussi).	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD30FFA28AA1FF60FC359A7A.taxon	materials_examined	Type material. This species was described from an immature, damaged male, measuring about 5 – 6 mm in length, from the Southern Ocean, near Scott Island (67 ° 23 ’ S 177 ° 59 ’ W), Terra Nova stn. 178, 0 – 500 m, 15 December 1910. The unique holotype is in the NHM, London, on one microscope slide (1954.4.30.1). Material examined. The unique holotype, as detailed above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD30FFA28AA1FF60FC359A7A.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Following examination of holotype male, 5 – 6 mm, and according to Barnard (1930) and Vinogradov (1962). Pereon not inflated. Antennae 1 with serrated margins; relative length not recorded. Antennae 2, in females, reduced to four tiny articles, together only as long as the peduncle of A 1; in the immature holotype male they are multi-articulate and only slightly longer than half A 1. Gnathopod 1; basis relatively short, length 0.6 – 0.7 x remaining articles combined, 1.7 x carpus; propodus similar in length to carpus; dactyl thin, relatively straight, length about 0.3 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 marginally longer than G 1 but similar in structure and relative lengths of articles. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure and length; basis length 1.7 – 2.0 x merus; carpus and propodus of similar length, slightly longer than merus, but in the type the carpus length is 1.6 x merus, and propodus length is 0.7 x carpus; propodus with long seta on antero-distal corner; dactyl very short; all articles with several long setae on both margins. Pereopod 5 marginally longer than P 4; basis length 1.6 x merus; carpus slightly shorter than merus, about 1.2 x length propodus; dactyl very small, fully retractile. Pereopod 6 similar in length to P 5; basis sub-equal in length to merus; carpus length almost 0.7 x merus; propodus marginally shorter than carpus; dactyl as for P 5. Pereopod 7 marginally shorter than P 5; basis length almost twice merus; carpus sub-equal in length to merus; propodus length 0.7 x carpus, slightly swollen in male; dactyl as for P 6. Uropoda with slender, relatively long, lanceolate rami, with serrated margins; U 1 & 2 with inner ramus distinctly longer than outer and much longer than peduncle. Uropod 1; inner ramus length 1.3 – 1.5 x outer, and 1.4 – 1.5 x peduncle; outer margin of peduncle distinctly convex, armed with numerous, short setae; outer margin of outer ramus also with few setae proximally. Uropod 2; inner ramus length 1.4 x outer (or similar in length), 1.4 x peduncle for female, slightly shorter than peduncle for holotype male; few fine setae distally on outer margin of peduncle and proximally on outer ramus. Uropod 3; inner ramus slightly longer than outer, and 1.4 – 1.5 x length peduncle; peduncle width 0.3 – 0.4 x length. Telson with rounded apex, slightly longer than broad, length almost 0.4 x peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimens.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD30FFA28AA1FF60FC359A7A.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This species is distinguished from M. gracilipes by the more setose outer margin of uropod 1, but more readily by the relatively shorter, and less slender, pereopods 5 – 7, and the relatively shorter merus of pereopod 7. According to Vinogradov et al. (1982) the dactyl of pereopods 3 & 4 may also be retractile but this character is poorly discernible. In the holotype male the dactyl of pereopod 4 is very small but does not seem to be retractile. In addition to the type there is only one other literature record of specimens captured, also from Antarctic waters. Vinogradov (1964) recorded a female, 4.5 mm, from the Pacific sector (64 ° 03 ’ S 161 ° 59 ’ E), Ob stn. 57, 0 – 3000 m and a juvenile female, 3.0 mm, from the Indian Ocean sector (64 ° 25 ’ S 92 ° 52 ’ E), Ob stn. 111, 0 – 2700 m.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD30FFA28AA1FF60FC359A7A.taxon	distribution	Distribution. This seems to be a Southern Ocean species, although there are only three records, from the Pacific and Indian Ocean sectors of the Antarctic, as detailed above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD33FFDF8AA1FAA2FBE79E49.taxon	description	(Figs. 33 – 35)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD33FFDF8AA1FAA2FBE79E49.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Holotype. Female, 5.0 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20429), immature judging by the under-developed oostegites; tropical South Pacific, north-east of Samoa (07 ° 46 ’ S 167 ° 10 ’ W), Dana stn. 3585 IX, 3000 mw, 31 October 1928. Allotype. Male, 4.7 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20430), immature judging by under-developed genital papillae; southwest Pacific, east of Cook Strait, New Zealand (41 ° 47 ’ S 176 ° 55 ’ E), Dana stn. 3640 VII, 2500 mw, 7 January 1929. Paratypes. N. E. Atlantic: Two females, 3.3 & 3.9 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20431); north of Madeira (33 ° 26 ’ N 16 ° 59 ’ W), Dana stn. 1142 IX, 2000 mw, 15 October 1921. N. E. Pacific: Female, about 4.5 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20432); north-east of Galapagos Islands (02 ° 52 ’ N 87 ° 38 ’ W), Dana stn. 3556 II, 2000 mw, 14 September 1928. Female, 5.0 mm (SAMA C 6883); off Queen Charlotte Island, B. C., Canada (51 ° 59.99 ’ N 135 ° 20.05 ’ W), ex. M. Galbraith, 1500 – 1000 m, 30 September 2001. Male, about 8.2 mm (SAMA C 6884); south of Gulf of Alaska (50 ° 12.23 ’ N 144 ° 48.11 ’ W), ex. M. Galbraith, 1000 – 0 m, 11 June 2005. S. E. Pacific: Female, about 8.3 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20433); south-east of Galapagos Islands (04 ° 20 ’ S 116 ° 46 ’ W), Dana stn. 3561 IV, 2000 mw, 24 September 1928. S. W. Pacific: Male, about 6.0 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20434); same data as holotype. Male, 3.8 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20435); north of Samoa (11 ° 00 ’ S 172 ° 37 ’ W), Dana stn. 3587 VI, 1000 mw, 2 November 1928. Female, urosome missing (ZMUC CRU- 20436); same data as allotype but stn. 3640 VIII, 2000 mw. Three females, 3.2, 3.4 & 5.0 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20437); east of New Zealand (46 ° 43 ’ S 170 ° 08.5 ’ E), Dana stn. 3642 III, 2000 mw, 9 January 1929. Female, 4.3 mm; male, 3.7 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20438); Tasman Sea (33 ° 26 ’ S 157 ° 02 ’ E), Dana stn. 3656 IV, 2000 mw, 29 January 1929. Other material. N. E. Pacific: Female, 3.4 mm & three females, about 4.5 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20439 & CRU- 20440); Gulf of Panama (06 ° 48 ’ N 80 ° 33 ’ W), Dana stns. 1208 V & XVII, 3000 & 1600 mw respectively, 16 June 1922.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD33FFDF8AA1FAA2FBE79E49.taxon	description	Description of holotype (fig. 33). Female, 5.0 mm; immature judging by the under-developed oostegites. Pereon slightly inflated, due to enlargement of pereonites 1 – 5. Antennae 1 missing terminal articles. Antennae 2 reduced, slightly longer than peduncle of A 1, consisting of five articles in addition to the gland cone; the third and terminal article with a long seta. Gnathopod 1; basis length 1.5 x carpus; propodus marginally shorter than carpus, with several moderate setae on both margins; dactyl relatively strong, length about 0.3 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 more slender than G 1, but of similar length and structure. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure, with P 3 marginally longer; basis length 1.7 x merus; merus length 0.7 x carpus; propodus length almost 0.8 x carpus, with very long seta on antero-distal corner; dactyl length almost 0.2 x propodus; merus, carpus and propodus with long setae on both margins, those on posterior margin of carpus especially long. Pereopod 5 length 1.2 x P 4; basis length 1.7 x merus; carpus slightly longer than merus; propodus length about 0.7 x carpus; dactyl relatively small, curved, fully retractile. Pereopod 6 slightly longer than P 5; basis length about 1.5 x merus; carpus length 0.7 x merus; propodus length slightly more than 0.7 x carpus; dactyl as for P 5. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 6; basis length twice merus; carpus length 1.6 x merus, moderately swollen medially; propodus length and width about half of carpus, or slightly less; dactyl as for P 5. Uropoda with relatively slender peduncles and rami; all with inner ramus distinctly longer than outer and slightly longer than peduncle; all rami with slightly serrated margins. Uropod 1; inner ramus length about 1.2 x outer, and 1.4 x peduncle; outer margin of peduncle distinctly convex, armed with numerous, short, fine setae; proximal part of outer margin of outer ramus also armed with short setae. Uropod 2; inner ramus length about 1.4 x outer, slightly longer than peduncle; few fine setae distally on outer margin of peduncle, and proximally on outer ramus. Uropod 3; inner ramus slightly longer than outer, about 1.5 x peduncle; peduncle width 0.3 x length. Telson with very rounded distal margin, length about 0.4 x peduncle of U 3. Description of allotype (fig. 34). Male, 4.7 mm; probably immature. Pereon very slender. Antennae 1 almost as long as head and pereon combined; terminal article with truncate dorsal margin, length almost 4 x previous two articles combined. Antennae 2 length about 1.4 x A 1, consisting of eight slender articles in addition to the gland cone, the third being the longest. Gnathopod 1 similar to holotype, but propodus with more numerous, long setae. Gnathopod 2 slightly shorter than G 1, otherwise similar to holotype. Pereopod 3; basis length 1.5 x merus; carpus length 1.2 x merus; propodus length slightly more than 0.7 x carpus, with very long seta on antero-distal corner; dactyl length slightly less than 0.2 x propodus. Pereopod 4 with only basis and ischium present on both sides. Pereopod 5; left with only basis-merus present; right with propodus and dactyl missing; basis length 1.5 x merus; carpus marginally longer than merus. Pereopod 6 similar in structure and relative length to holotype; propodus with very long seta on postero-distal corner. Pereopod 7 length 0.8 x P 6; basis length twice merus; carpus length 1.4 x merus; propodus length about 0.6 x carpus, with long seta on postero-distal corner; dactyl as for P 6. Uropoda similar, in structure and relative lengths of peduncles and rami, to holotype. Telson length slightly more than 0.3 x peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimens. Variations. The first antennae of very immature specimens of both sexes often have only two articles terminal to the callynophore, with the terminal article being relatively longer than in the holotype (fig. 33). Presumably an additional article is formed from the division of the terminal one in more mature specimens. The second antennae of very immature males are usually shorter than the first, but never as short as in females; at least not amongst the material examined. In some specimens the pereopods are slightly more slender than for the holotype or allotype. The pereopods all seem to have a very long seta on the distal corner of the propodus next to the dactyl, although this is not evident for all pereopods in any one specimen, presumably because the setae easily become detached during the collecting process. Similarly, the setae on the peduncle of uropod 3 appear very worn in some specimens. For pereopod 6 the length ratio merus / carpus is about 1.3 – 1.4, rarely more, except for one male specimen from the north-east Pacific (SAMA C 6884), where it is nearly 1.9. In M. gracilipes it is about 2.5. In the holotype, the merus of pereopod 7 is slightly wider than the basis, and the carpus is even wider; more than twice as wide as the propodus. These articles are not as swollen in all female specimens, especially the juveniles. In some specimens the carpus of pereopod 5 is also slightly swollen as for pereopod 7.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD33FFDF8AA1FAA2FBE79E49.taxon	etymology	Etymology. This species is named for Dr Moira Galbraith, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, B. C., Canada, who, over the years, has kindly sent me many interesting specimens from the north-eastern Pacific region, mostly collected by the LaPerouse and Line P Monitoring Programs.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD33FFDF8AA1FAA2FBE79E49.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Although twenty specimens of this new species are available for study, very few are in good condition, and thus, less mature specimens were selected as the holotype and allotype. The specimens from Dana stn. 1208 (Gulf of Panama) are in particularly poor condition and have been excluded from the type series. This species is most similar to M. gracilipes but is readily distinguished by the less slender pereopods, especially pereopods 5 – 7, and by the relatively short merus and swollen carpus (females) of pereopod 7. Similarly it differs from M. setosa as determined in the key. All of the material, representing this new species, came from the Pacific Ocean except for two females from the north east Atlantic (Dana stn. 1142 IX). Prior to examining this material in detail I thought that these specimens may be M. gracilipes, as they were captured near the type locality of that species. However, upon further study, most characters proved to be identical to the holotype of M. galbraithae.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD33FFDF8AA1FAA2FBE79E49.taxon	distribution	Distribution. In the Pacific it has been recorded from a wide range of localities, from the north-east as far north as 52 ° N, to the south-east and central parts and the south-west as far south as 46 ° 43 ’ S, as detailed above. In the Atlantic it has only been recorded from one locality in the north-east (33 ° 26 ’ N 16 ° 59 ’ W). The specimens from Dana stn. 3656 IV represent a new record for the genus for Australian waters. Most specimens were captured with 2000 mw, with a few as deep as 3000 mw.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD4EFFDF8AA1FA51FB3599AB.taxon	type_taxon	Type species: Microscina rostrata sp. nov., by present designation.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD4EFFDF8AA1FA51FB3599AB.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. As with the characters of the family with the following additions. Cuticle very thin, translucent. Antennae 1 with relatively broad, lanceolate callynophore. Pereon of females slightly inflated due to enlargement of pereonites 1 – 4. Pereopods with margins of most articles slightly serrated. Uropoda; peduncles and rami with slightly serrated margins. One species.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD4EFFDF8AA1FA51FB3599AB.taxon	etymology	Etymology. The new genus name makes reference to the unusually small buccal mass.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD4EFFDF8AA1FE64FBAE9A24.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. Known only from one female specimen, measuring about 12.0 mm; presumably mature, judging by the well-developed oostegites. Head with distinct, curved, elongate rostrum over-lapping most of A 1; slightly shorter than first three pereonites combined, excluding rostrum. Eyes absent. Pereonites 1 – 2 fused; pereonites decreasing in size posteriorly. Coxae relatively small, separate from pereonites. Pleon relatively slender. Antennae 1 as long as head (minus rostrum) and first four pereonites combined; with stout callynophore, triangular in cross-section, with serrated margins and 2 – 3 short, stout terminal articles; peduncle two-articulate. Antennae 2 slender, about half length A 1; consisting of four articles. Buccal mass (mouthparts) unusually small. Left mandible with narrow lacinia mobilis, about half as wide as incisor; incisor with row of small teeth, similar to, and aligned with, lacinia mobilis, then followed by three larger teeth and a bunch of smaller teeth. Right mandible with incisor like left but with the three larger teeth offset along the face of the body. Maxillae 1 with broad palp, armed with three strong setae distally; outer lobe broad, armed with four strong setae distally; inner lobe rounded with inner corner slightly produced. Maxillae 2 with relatively slender lobes of similar length; armed with 2 – 3 strong setae. Maxilliped with broad, rounded outer lobes; inner lobes separate, relatively short, length about one-third outer lobes. Gnathopods simple, relatively slender. Pereopods very slender, all with relatively small, retractile dactyls. Urosomites 2 – 3 with partial suture ventrally. Uropoda slender with articulated rami. Telson length 0.3 x peduncle of U 3; apex very rounded. Gills on pereonites 2 – 6. Oostegites on pereonites 2 – 5. One genus: Microscina gen. nov.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD4EFFDF8AA1FE64FBAE9A24.taxon	discussion	Remarks. This new family has been established here to accommodate the new genus and species described below, from the tropical South Atlantic, near the Gulf of Guinea. This new species belongs with the Scinoidea primarily because the mandibles lack a palp, but it also possess several characters that preclude it from all other families of the superfamily, and thus, a new family is required to accommodate it. The most significant characters that distinguish this family are as follows; the head has a distinct rostrum; pereonites 1 – 2 are fused; pereopods 3 – 7 have retractile dactyls; the mouthparts are relatively small, and the mandibles have an incisor with three larger teeth and a relatively narrow lacinia mobilis. It is most similar to Mimoscinidae in having slender pereopods with retractile dactyls, but in that family only pereopods 5 – 7 have retractile dactyls.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD4EFFDA8AA1F8D1FB4F9AB6.taxon	description	(Figs. 36 – 37)	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD4EFFDA8AA1F8D1FB4F9AB6.taxon	materials_examined	Material examined. Holotype. Female, approx 12.0 mm (ZMUC CRU- 20441); south-eastern tropical Atlantic, in vicinity of Gulf of Guinea (03 ° 45 ’ S 10 ° 00 ’ W), Dana stn. 3999 III, 600 mw, 2 March 1930. Mouthparts mounted on microscope slide, remainder in spirit.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD4EFFDA8AA1F8D1FB4F9AB6.taxon	description	Description of holotype. Female, approx 12.0 mm; probably mature judging by the well-developed oostegites, armed with long setae on distal margin. Cuticle very thin, translucent. Head with curved, elongate, triangular rostrum, over-lapping most of A 1. Pereonites broad and deep anteriorly, becoming smaller posteriorly, with pereonite 7 the smallest. Pereonites 1 & 2 mostly fused, only slightly joined ventrally. Pleonites relatively narrow. Coxae relatively small. Antennae 1 as long as head (minus rostrum) and first four pereonites combined; with stout, lanceolate callynophore, triangular in cross-section, with serrated margins; with 2 – 3 short, terminal articles. Antennae 2 slender, about half length A 1; consisting of four articles. Gnathopod 1; basis length 1.4 x carpus; propodus length 0.8 x carpus, both articles covered in well-spaced, fine setae; dactyl narrow, slightly curved, length about 0.2 x propodus. Gnathopod 2 sub-equal in length to G 1, with more slender articles, especially carpus and propodus; basis length almost twice carpus; propodus slightly longer than carpus, both articles with several fine setae on posterior margin; dactyl narrow, bent at right angles near base, length slightly more than 0.1 x propodus. Pereopods 3 & 4 similar in structure, with P 3 marginally longer; all articles relatively elongate, with posterior margin slightly serrated; basis length 1.6 – 1.7 x merus; carpus and merus of similar length; propodus length 0.9 x carpus (P 3) or 0.8 x carpus (P 4); dactyl a small, curved nail, fully retractile. Pereopod 5 slightly shorter than P 4; all articles relatively elongate, with anterior margin slightly serrated, also serrations mid-way along face; basis length 1.3 x merus; carpus length 0.6 x merus; propodus length 0.8 x carpus; dactyl as for P 3 & 4. Pereopod 6 with carpus and propodus missing but similar in structure to, but much longer than, P 5, judging by the relatively longer basis and merus; basis length 1.2 x merus. Pereopod 7 slightly shorter than P 5 but of similar structure; basis length 1.6 x merus; carpus length 0.8 x merus; propodus slightly shorter than carpus; dactyl as for P 5. Uropoda with relatively slender peduncles and rami; all with slightly serrated margins; all with inner ramus slightly longer than outer, both much longer than peduncle. Uropod 1; inner ramus length 1.2 x outer, and 1.8 x peduncle. Uropod 2; inner ramus only slightly longer than outer, and 1.4 x peduncle. Uropod 3; inner ramus only marginally longer than outer, 1.4 x peduncle. Telson rounded, not triangular, about as long as wide; length almost 0.3 x peduncle of U 3. Colour not known for living specimen.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD4EFFDA8AA1F8D1FB4F9AB6.taxon	etymology	Etymology. The specific name emphasises the unusual character of the relatively long rostrum that distinguishes this species.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD4EFFDA8AA1F8D1FB4F9AB6.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Although there is only one, slightly imperfect specimen available, the characters are so unusual that I have no hesitation in describing it as new to science, and assigning it to a new genus and family. In having a head with a rostrum, it is unlike any other species of the Scinoidea, and in having pereonites 1 – 2 fused, it only resembles Acanthoscina and Spinoscina (Scinidae). It also resembles some species of Scinidae in having serrated margins on the fist antennae, and on some pereopod articles, and on the uropoda. However, the characters of the uropoda, with an articulated inner ramus, and the maxilliped, with free inner lobes, alone preclude it from this family. It is most similar to species of Mimoscina (Mimoscinidae) in having slender pereopods with retractile dactyls, but in that family the dactyls of pereopods 3 & 4 are not retractile, the head lacks a distinct rostrum, the pereonites are all free, the first antennae are of a different structure, and the mandibles have a relatively broader lacinia mobilis and the incisor is of a different structure. In having pereopods with retractile dactyls, and a head with a distinct rostrum, this species also resembles some members of the Lanceoloidea, particularly Chuneolidae (see Zeidler 2009), species of which also possess mandibles lacking a palp. Initially I thought that this might be an unusual species of Chuneola, but species of this genus are all very robust, the pereonites are all separate, the coxae are relatively large, the first antennae are not lanceolate and have a three-articulate peduncle, the second antennae are reduced to a relatively large gland cone plus one tiny article, the mouthparts are relatively large, the mandibles have a relatively broad incisor lacking the three prominent teeth characteristic of Microscina rostrata, and the retractile dactyls of the pereopods are characteristically hooded.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
3E6B7221CD4EFFDA8AA1F8D1FB4F9AB6.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Known only from the type locality, from the unique holotype, as detailed above.	en	Zeidler, Wolfgang (2012): A review of the hyperiidean amphipod families Mimonectidae and Proscinidae (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea: Scinoidea) 3533. Zootaxa 3533: 1-74
