96 ASTACIDiE. 



dall would have mentioned these very curious organs in his description 

 if they had really existed. The tail is apparently very poorly figured, 

 but the strong spines at the apex of the intermediate lamina are di- 

 rected outward as well as in the lateral lamina and the base in the 

 same manner as in A. nic/resccns and Trowhrkhju. I think the spine in the 

 middle of the base of the beak is not at all a spine, but merely a car- 

 inated elevation very badly figured. A. nic/rescens has a similar but not so 

 well produced elevation; the spines could not have been very prominent, 

 as the painter did not figure them at all. It is possible that the form 

 of the carpus and brachium is as badly exaggerated. The exterior an- 

 tennae are apparently too short, and the length of the rostrum, so much 

 longer than the peduncle of the antenna^, is probably erroneous ; the 

 lamina of the antennae is figured as inarticulate ! I think the characters 

 quoted make it evident that the figure is without scientific value. 



It is impossible to recognize this species, from an incomplete descrip- 

 tion and a very inadequate figure. The general appearance (although 

 the mesothorax is very short) seems to point to a species near A. Icni- 

 tisciihis and Trowhridyii, both being from the same locality, while the out- 

 wardly directed spines on the tail are truly characteristic of this group. 

 The rostrum has the shape of A. leiiiusailus. The position of the five 

 spines behind the front is very doubtful, and probably Erichson intended 

 to give by the figure, which shows the little marks on each side, a more 

 correct view of their position. The apparent incorrectness induces me 

 to think that A. Orcganus can be no other than A. Icniusciilus, or else is to 

 be struck out entirely. 



