• 68 



the case of the second pair of legs; carpó- and propodite are more slender than the meropodite 

 and together as long as this meropodite; the dactylus is markedly compressed, in 

 the sa me way as in Ocypoda, and fringed with hairs, that rapidly decrease in length from 

 base to tip, in all the legs the dactyli are about two-thirds of the length of the propodite 

 and slightly curved, but in the case of the poster ior pair the dactyli are per- 

 fectly straight. 



Stimpsox establishcd a new family Camptandriidae for the reception of his genus, as he 

 observed quite well, that the latter could not be included into the Grapsidae, though apparently 

 allied to Cyrtograpsus Dana. Alcock l ), though with a query, referred Camptcuidrium to the 

 Goneplacidae. I am of opinion, that the genus does not belong to ei t her ot 

 these families, but that i t e v i d e n 1 1 y is o n e of the Ocypodidae and that i t s 

 natural place is among the Macrophthalminae. This view is corroborated by the relative 

 narrowness of the front, by the slender eye-stalks, and especially by the plate-like, 

 scarcely ga ping extern al maxillipeds, the merus of which is as large as, or even 

 slightlv larger than, the ischium ; the much compressed shape of the dactyli of the ambulatory 

 legs likevvise points to the Ocypodidae. The affinity to the Macrophthalminae is proved by 

 the absence of hairy tufts between the bases of the walking legs, by the narrow nasal plate 

 separating the oblique antennulae, and by the wiclth of the front, that is broader than in 

 Ocypodinae or Mictyrinae. lts nearest ally is undoubtedly the genus Paracleistostoma de Man, 

 as the later al angles of the front are pro du eed, and the abdomen of the 

 c? is lik e wis e constricted between the fourth and fifth segment, and these 

 segments, together with the third, are completely fused 2 ); besides, the abdomen 

 only occupies slightly more than two-thirds of the interspace between the bases of the posterior 

 legs and reaches upward till nearly the posterior boundary of the buccal cavern, and the movable 

 finger of the chela bears a subquadrate tooth near the base : all these facts point in the same 

 direction. Camptandrium even bears a distant resemblance to the new species P. dentatum 

 (see p. 63, pi. 3, f. 2) in the toothing of the carapace, but it is needless here to enumerate 

 the many points of difference that warrant the maintaining of Camptandrium as quite a 

 distinct genus. 



As to Miss Rathbun's new species, C. paludicola 3 ), it is very difficult to decide anything 

 about its true systematic position, as only one young Q has been obtained. After the information 

 we now possess about Camptandrium it is, however, evident, that it does not belong to this 

 genus and I venture to suggest, that it really is to be referred to Cyrtograpsus Dana i ), which 

 view is supported by the peculiar toothing of the carapace r ') and by the shape of the external 

 maxillipeds, the merus of which is distinctly shorter and smaller than the ischium and auriculate 

 at its antero-external angle. In any case this species certainly belongs to the Grapsidae. 



1) Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, v. 69, prt 2, 1900, p. 292. 



2) Compaie the details uf Paracleistostoma depressum de Man in Zool. Jahrb. Syst,, Bd 8, 1895, pi. '4i f- 1 3 c ' — d. 



3) Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, v. 22, 1909, p. 109. K. Dansk. Vid. Selsk. Skr., 7. Raekke, Afd. 5, n° 4, p. 326, textfig. 9. 

 Hab. Gulf of Siam, in mangrove swamps. 



4) Proc. Ac. Nat. Sc. Philadelphia, 1851, p. 250. 



5) Compare the figures of C. angulatm Dana in U.S. Expl. Exp., Crust,, 1852, p. 352, pi! 22, f. 6. Hab. Rio Negro (Patagonia). 



68 



