HISTORY OF THE SPECIES 477 



tinguished it from Grimothea gregaria by the slightly longer external maxillipeds 

 (foliaceous in both forms) and named it Grimothea novae-zelandiae . This distinction, 

 however, is not valid. He did not consider it to be the young of M. subrugosa from which 

 it is distinguished by the foliaceous external maxillipeds. Miers, in the catalogue of New 

 Zealand Crustacea, 1876, described M. subrugosa and added: " I think it quite possible 

 that the Grimothea gregaria, Leach, very common at the Falklands, and in the Straits 

 of Magellan, is the immature condition of M. subrugosa. The only difference of any 

 importance between them consists in the elongated foliaceous external maxillipeds of 

 G. gregaria on which Leach established the genus Grimothea, and it is also a much 

 smaller species. But in a large series of specimens in the National Collection named, 

 I think rightly, by Dr Cunningham M. subrugosa, and obtained at various points at the 

 southern extremity of the American continent, there is considerable variation in the 

 length of the external maxillipeds. On the other hand, specimens agreeing with 

 G. gregaria in all respects have just been received by the British Museum from New 

 Zealand. I have not, however, been able to observe a complete gradation between the 

 two species. The hands in G. gregaria are granulous, in M. subrugosa they are usually 

 spinulous". 



Targione Tozzetti in 1877 described and figured specimens of M. subrugosa from 

 western Patagonia. His specimens conformed with Dana's description and figure. In 

 1878 Hutton recorded specimens of M. subrugosa from the Auckland Islands and he 

 evidently thought that they were a distinct species from Grimothea gregaria for he said, 

 "The young specimen is quite as small or smaller than Grimothea gregaria, so abundant 

 round the South Island in March, and yet it does not show the slightest approach to the 

 foliaceous maxillipeds of Grimothea. The habits of the two species are also quite 

 different. Grimothea is pelagic and floats on the surface of the sea, while Munida lives 

 at the bottom". However, in 188 1 Miers received further specimens from the Straits 

 of Magellan taken during the survey of H.M.S. 'Alert', and in discussing these he 

 stated that the British Museum had received specimens from New Zealand identical 

 with those from Patagonia, though the type specimens (from New Zealand) differed 

 slightly. From this he concluded that Dana's M. subrugosa was identical with that of 

 White and of Cunningham. He also considered Grimothea gregaria to be only the young 

 form of M. subrugosa, for which he adopted the name Munida gregaria. 



Henderson's Challenger Report in 1888 recorded specimens of M. subrugosa from 

 Patagonia, Falkland Islands, off Montevideo and Bass Strait. No specimens of Grimothea 

 gregaria were taken by the ' Challenger ', but two specimens were received from Welling- 

 ton Museum (New Zealand). The Challenger specimens did not support the view that 

 Grimothea gregaria was the young stage of M. subrugosa, as there were some that were 

 not more than one-third of the size of ordinary specimens of Grimothea, which yet had 

 all the characters of the adult M. subrugosa and were taken on the bottom along with 

 them. Henderson, however, pointed out that the general appearance of Grimothea 

 favours the theory of immaturity and that the only essential difference between Grimothea 

 and M. subrugosa is the length and foliaceous character of the external maxilliped, which 



