îü
í
I ■ ■ H i
4 :;:
„1i*ii1)1 ■
I I I
tn
I t iH i mill
Ilt|il Il l«l*
j in t i
iHU.
IMiif
i»jMlli*U !' iI
Uinii
!!!!!!!!
aiiHiH
U i ! : ! !
n in
H§!di lAl- I)
l î i i i
iliji
?:?5M
m
-iÎ li'
i
il
il Í
DECAPODA.
BRACHYURA.
1. Achæus lævioculis. (P late XLVI. fig. A.)
I thus doubtfully designate a male specimen from tbe Seychelles,
4 -12 fms., wbicb in many of its characters closely resembles A.lorina
(Ad. & White*), from Mindanao and Borneo, but is distinguished by
the absence of the prominent spines or tubercles on the gastric and
cardiac regions of tbe carapace (which are here replaced by very
small tubercles), the nearly terete eye-pedunclcs (which in A . lorina
are armed witb a spine or tubercle), and tbe much shorter ambulatory
legs, which are scarcely more than twice tbe length of the
carapace, and have tbe dactyli, even of the fifth pair, very little
falcated, whereby tbis species may be at once distinguished from
A . cranchii and A. ïacertosus. A . tuberculatus, Miers, has the carapace
much less constricted behind tbe eyes, a prominent cardiac spine,
&c. I should noto th at in specimens of A . lorina in the Muséum
collection tbe spines of the carapace are much less prominent than
in tbe figure of Adams and AVbite,
2. Camposcia retusa, Latr.
Two females of this common Oriental species were obtained on
tbe beach between tide-marks at Mozambique (No. 224), a locality
whence Dr. Hilgendorf has already recorded it. I have already
referred to its distribution on p. 189.
3. Huenia pacifica, Miers.
A male from tbe Seychelles, 4 -1 2 fms. (No. 194), closely resembles
the type specimen of this species from tbe Fijis in the characteristically
long and slender rostrum and in all other characters. The
occurrence of H. pacifica at the Seychelles suggests tbe possibility
of tbis form being identical with H. grandidieri, A. M.-Edwards,
from Zanzibar, founded upon a female example o n ly f. I have,
however, already noted tbe distinctions which exist between M.-
Edwards’s figures of H. grandidieri and tbe female from the Eijis
in tbe Museum collection which I refer to H. qmcifica. AVitb the
limited material available for comparison, tbe two forms certainly
cannot be united ; but perhaps tbe examination of a sufficient series
would demonstrate the necessity of regarding both as mere varieties
of tbe long-known H. proteus, witb which they may be linked through
tbe form designated by AVhite H. heráldica, wbicb has been already
cited in the first part of tbis Report as synonymous witb H. proteus.
* Zool. ‘ Samarang,’ Crust, p. 3, pi. ii. fig. 2 (1848).
t Ann. Soc. Bntqm. France, sér. 4, v. p. 143, pi. iv. fig. 2 (1865).
4. Menæthius monoceros {Latr.).
A series of specimens of botb sexes and various ages are in the
collection from tbe Seychelles, 4 -12 fms. (No. 194); also a small
female obtained on tbe beach at Mozambique (No. 224), which has
tbe prominences or lobes of the antero-lateral margins spiniform
and acute.
I have already referred to tbis widely distributed and variable
species on p. 19U.
A small female specimen, wbicb has unfortunately lost all the
legs, obtained at African or Eagle Islands, 10 fms. (No. 184), has
tbe rostrum remarkably abbreviated, not equalling in length tbe
interocular width of the frontal region of the carapace, the greatest
width at tbe branchial regions little exceeding tbe width at the
frontal region, and tbe basal antennal joint more dilated than in the
typical M. monoceros. I t appears to merit distinction at least as a
variety, since I have seen no specimen in the extensive Museum
series which closely resembles it, but I refrain for tbe present from
designating it as such.
5. Stilbognatbus martensii. (P late XLYI. fig. B.)
I propose thus to designate two males obtained at Marie-Louise
Island, 17 fms. (No. 186), and a male from Providence Island, 19
fms. (No. 217), wbicb, although having tbe iscbium-joint of the
outer maxillipedes longitudinally sulcated (and hence certainly
belonging to Stilbognathus), differ from Stilbognathus erythrceus, Von
Martens*, from the Red Sea, in tbe form of tbe merus-joint, which
has its extero-distal angle produced and acute as in Stenocionops
cervicornis, and which further difi'ers from tbe known species botb
of Stenocionops and Stilbognathus in having the notch on the inner
margin (where tbe fourth joint articulates witb it) provided witb a
tooth or lobe (see fig. b).
The carapace is constricted behind tbe orbits (as in S. cervicornis);
tbe gastric, cardiac, and front of tbe branchial regions are rather
convex and more or less distinctly covered with small tubercles or
granules; the posterior margin of the carapace is cristate and prolonged
in tbe median line into a tooth or lobe. Tbe spines of tbe
rostrum are slender and curved at first outwards and then inwards
so as to meet at the apices, which are vertically reflexed as in Nfe-
nocionopscurvirostriSjA.M.-FdwaTds. There is a rounded prominence
upon each pterygostomian region. The supraocular spines of tbe
carapace are very long and s tra ig h t; the eye-peduncles even longer;
the basal antennal joint is considerably dilated, and has a small
spine on its outer side near tbe base and another at its distal extremity.
The longitudinal pit ou tbe outer surface of tbe ischium-
joint of tbe outer maxillipedes is longer than in Stilbognathus ery-
V'M' 1i.iS' :' 1 ‘;s ,1 liii! !
ti J