44 Annals of the South African Museum. 



Locality. Cape Point, by D. E. N.E. f E. 40 miles ; depth, 720 

 to 800 fathoms ; bottom, green mud. 



STOMATOPODA. 

 FAMILY SQUILLnXE. 



GEN. SQUILLA, Fabricius. 



1793. Squilla, Fabricius, But. Syst., vol. ii., p. 511. 



1902. Squilla, Stebbing, South African Crustacea, pt. 2, p. 43. 



SQUILLA NEPA, Latreille. 



1825. Squilla nepa, Latreille, Encycl. Meth. Hist. Nat., x., p. 471. 

 1894. Squilla nepa, Bigelow, Proc. U.S. Mus., vol. xvii.,pp. 511, 535, 

 fig. 21. 



1903. Squilla nepa, Nobili, Boll. Mus. Zool. Torino, vol. xviii., 



N. 452, p. 23, and N. 455, p. 38. 



A discussion of the synonymy is supplied in Dr. Bigelow's 

 treatise. The question is rather complicated, for Latreille, by giving 

 a reference to Herbst's figure of Mantis digitalis (Naturg. Krabben 

 und Krebse, pi. 33, fig. 1), appears to identify his species with that 

 represented by Herbst. The latter authority, however, does not 

 claim a new species. He adopts the preoccupied Mantis as a 

 substitute for Squilla, and then very sensibly remarks, " As I have 

 given the generic name Mantis to this whole family, I have not 

 been able to give that name to this single species. He thought it 

 was out of the question to call a species Mantis mantis, and therefore 

 in place of Squilla mantis, Auctorum, wrote Mantis digitalis. It is 

 fairly certain that he confused a new species with the old one, but 

 it cannot be positively affirmed that his figure represents Latreille's 

 Squilla nepa. Dr. Bigelow points out that Latreille's original de- 

 scription covers t\vo distinct forms, already carefully distinguished 

 by Berthold in 1845, as respectively S. nepa, Latreille, and S. affinis. 

 In regard to these he says, " As Berthold was the first to separate 

 these species, we should undoubtedly follow his nomenclature, 

 regarding the small-eyed form as S. nepa, Latreille, and giving his 

 name S. affinis to the other. Berthold' s description of the latter is 

 very complete, is accompanied by measurements and figures, and 

 was published years before de Haan's. I cannot see that de Haan 

 had any warrant for replacing Berthold' s name for this species by 

 one of his own, and the latter should be dropped." As against this 



