specimens in tho British-Museum collection scarcely any traces
exist of the moral spines above mentioned._ 1 may add th a t I
have observed a considerable degree of variation in the length of
the rostrum in the large series of specimens of this species in the
collection of the British Museum. In the type specimen of Egeria
indicM of Leach in this collection the third joint of the outer maxil-
lipede does not in reality present any peculiarity of form, nor does
this specimen differ from ordinary adult examples of the genus. ^
1 believe, then, it will be necessary to unite under one specihc
designation the threo forms Egeria arachnoides, E. herhstii, and
E. indica, mentioned by Milne-Edwards*, and th at to this species
the name arachnoides must be applied rather than the Linnean
designation longipes, because Liimæus’s description of his Cancer
longipes \ differs in several particulars from Egeria arachnoïdes;
thus he says “ manus ovatce, muricatce,” or “ scahrce,” whereas in
Ejeria arachnoides the hands are always elongated and smooth;
moreover, in the middle line of_ the carapace are five (not four)
tubercles or short spines ; other distinctions might be mentioned.
Specimens of Egeria arachnoides are in the Museum collection
from the Indian Ocean (HardivicJce), Philippine Islands, Zebu
(Cuming), Shanghai (purchased of Jamrach), Port Curtis, Australia
(J. Alacgillivray), &c. ; several other N.E. Australian localities are
recorded by Mr. Haswell.
The species designated Egeria longiqies, M.-Edw., by Adams and
AA’h ite î, if correctly characterized, differs from any specimen of the
genus I have seen in its very much broader, transverse front, and
may belong to a distinct species.
8. Chorilihinia gracilipes.
Miers, Ann. A May. Nat. Hist. ser. 5, xix. p. 7, pi. iv. fig. 4 (1879);
Hasivell, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S. Wales, iv. p. 439 (1880) ; Cat.
Austr. Crust, p. 17 (1882).
In Dr. Coppinger’s first collection two adult females were received
from Port Alolle, 14 fms. (No. 93), and one from Albany Island,
3 -4 fms. (No. 109). In the second collection are a male and female
from Port Darwin, 7-12 fms. (No. 173).
The types in the British Aluseum are from Papua, and Mr. Haswell
records the occurrence of this species at Cape Grenville.
9. Paramithrax (Chlorinoides) coppingeri, Haswell.
An adult female is in the collection from Port Darwin, 12 fms.,
and two small males from Dundas Strait, 1/ fms. (No. 161). Has-
welPs specimens were from AVhitsunday Passage (H.Al.S. Alert ).
* Hist. Nat. des Crustacés, i. pp. 291, 292 (1834). _
t AIus. Lud. Ulriei, p. 446 (1764) ; Syst. Nat. ed. xii. p. 1047 (1766).
Î Crust, in Zool. Voy. H.Al.S. ‘ Samarang,’ p. 6 (1848).
Other specimens of this species are in the British Museum from
Moreton Bay (purchased), and from the collection of H.M.S.
‘ Samarang,’ without precise indication of locality.
The spines of the carapace vary considerably in number and
length ; in an adult female from Moreton Bay the two posterior
spines of the carapace are absent ; in a small male from the same
locality both are present, although very small ; in Dr. Coppinger’s
specimens one only is developed. In none of the specimens I have
examined are the spines of the carapace knobbed at the tip.
These specimens principally differ from Haswell’s description in
having but a single broad and usually dentated lobe behind the
three straight, acute, spinous teeth of the upper orbital border, as in
De Haan’s figure of P. longispinus. They are only distinguished
from P. longispinus by the form of the hands of the chelipedes, the
palms (alike in males and females) being slenderer, with the upper
margins straight, and the fingers straight and meeting along their
inner edges, whieh are entire, without spines or tubercles on their
inner margins. I t is not stated if this character exists in the types
of P. coppingeri; and I am therefore somewhat doubtful if our specimens
belong to th at species, which may after all be synonymous
with P. longispinus. In the latter event the Museum examples
referred to P. coppingeri would apparently require a distinct
specific appellation.
10. Paramithrax (Chlorinoides) aculeatus, var. armatus.
(P late X V III. fig. A.)
I thus designate a series of specimens in the collection which
apparently approach so nearly the Chorinus aculeatus of Milne-
Edwards as to render it unadvisahle to separate them specifically
in the absence of figures of C. aculeatus. As Alilne-Edwards’s
description* is somewhat brief, I subjoin the following description
of an adult example in Dr. Coppinger’s collection ;—
Carapace more or less pubescent, subpyriform, moderately convex,
withfive spines arranged in a median longitudinal series, of which two
are situate on the gastric, one on the cardiac, and one on the intestinal
region, and one on the posterior margin ; there are also two strong and
outwardly-divergent spines on each of the branchial regions. The
rostral spines are long, acute, curving outward, and separate! from
one another, even at their bases, by a distinct interspace ; the upper
orbital margin has two deep fissures ; the præocular spine is strong
and curves upward ; there is also a strong postocular spine, which
has a tooth on its posterior margin ; posterior to this, on the sides
of the carapace, is another small spine. On the inferior surface of
the carapace (on the pterygostomian region) are three tubercles
arranged in an oblique line ; and posterior and parallel to these an
oblique crest, which terminates in a tooth or short spine. There is
a strong tooth directed downward on the interantennal septum, and
* Vide Hist. Nat. Crust, i. p. 316 (1834).
i I
t '
!f 1,1'