i84 



is obscurely indicated, with an indistinct longitudinal sulcus between the protogastric areas, a cervical 

 groove is present, but very short and straight, and a cardiac area is separated from the branchial 

 regions, but on the whole the carapace may be regarded as nearly not subdivided into regions. 



The ratio of the length of the carapace to its greatest breadth (the latter being taken 

 between the tips of the epibranchial teeth) is i : 1.46 in my larger specimen, in that of Miss 

 Rathbun it is I : 1.53 according to text and 1.61 in the figure, accordingly in the "Siboga" 

 specimen the carapace is proportionately narrower, but perhaps this may be attributed to the 

 small size of my specimen. 



The front is broader than either orbit, its surface is obscurely grooved in the middle, 

 and its anterior margin is perfectly straight ^). Eye-stalks short, increasing in thickness towards 

 the eye, which is greatly enlarged and club-Hke in anterior view. Supra-orbital margin entire, 

 sloping backward towards the subrectangular, not at all prominent, extern al 

 orbital angle; behind this angle a single, sharp epibranchial tooth is found, curved forward 

 and somewhat ontward; it is between the tips of these teeth that the carapace 

 attains its greatest breadth. Behind these epibranchial teeth the margins of the carapace 

 are distinctly convergent backward, so that the posterior breadth, at the level of the penultimate 

 pair of legs is about three-fourths of the distance between the external orbital angles. 



Peduncle of the antennae free, flagella little longer than width of orbit. Lateral margins 

 of buccal cavern convergent backward; external maxillipeds slender (fig. ia), with the merus 

 rectangularly rounded at the antero-external angle and very slightly prominent outward ; inner 

 margins of both ischium and merus crenulate and hairy. 



The chelipeds are short, finely granulate and equal in my specimen, but unequal according 

 to Miss Rathbun. Meropodite short, with sharp borders, outer border crenulate, inner margin 

 unarmed, upper border with a row of long hairs, e.xtending to the subterminal, acuminate and 

 curved spine (not a blunt tooth as Miss Rathbun observed) near the distal end. Wrist small, 

 with sharply-produced and flattened inner angle, but devoid of the outer spine of G. sinuati- 

 frons. Chela (fig. i^) not elongate, palm longer than fingers, with the borders rounded, upper 

 margin of chela with a row of hairs ; fingers greatly compressed, immovable finger not sharply 

 keeled below, straight, with the tip curved upward, cutting margin with about 5 crenulations, 

 the 2°<^ and 3"' of which are much broader than the remaining ones, movable finger greatly 

 curved towards the tip, inner margin crenulate, but near the base a large, obtuse tooth is seen; 

 outer surface of chela granulate, the granules tending to form two longitudinal rows on each 

 finger. Miss Rathbun's figure of the right chela dififers rather much from mine; the palm appears 

 to be much more inflated, and the fingers are shorter, apparently not compressed; the crenu- 

 lations on the inner margins of the fingers are not clearly shown. 



The walking legs are slender, but not very long, the penultimate pair being not yet 

 twice as long as the carapace. Meropodites five times as long as broad, quite unarmed 

 distally; dactyli finely pointed, not flattened, considerably longer than the preceding propodites. 

 The legs are somewhat more hairy than in G. simiatifrotis, but these hairs are rather widely 



l) In my specimen I neithev noticed the lateral notches in which the peduncles of the antennae are lodged, nor the impressed 

 line near and parallel to the margin of the front, as noted by Miss Rathbun. 



36 



