312 | MR. BELL, HORÆ CARCINOLOGICA ; 
The form and size of the lateral process vary considerably. In some it is cylindrical, in 
- others it is somewhat conical; in some it is either direct or even bent slightly backwards, 
in others the apex is turned forward ; in some there is a filiform appendage at its apex, in 
others there is not a vestige of this armature. The degree of granulation of the different 
parts also varies. 
With respect to I. inermis of Leach, I see no difference but what might be supposed to 
depend upon great age; and the distinction is really less on examining the actual speci- 
mens, than appears to be the case from merely a comparison of the figures. Under these 
circumstances, I have ventured to give the references to the three supposed species, as 
synonyms of the old Cancer Cylindrus of Fabricius. | 
I have already observed that the genus Harrovia of Adams and White has no rela- 
tion whatever to the present family. Iphiculus of the same authors, arranged by them 
amongst the Levcostapa, but stated in the same place to belong to the PARTHENOPIDA, 
appears to me to be nearly allied to the former family, and most probably associated with 
them. Certainly it has no near affinity with the PAmrHENOPIDX. Tlos may be safely - 
considered as allied to the LEUCOSIAD.E. Unfortunately, neither the eyes, the orbits, 
the antennulæ, the antennary fosse, nor the foot-jaws, are mentioned in the generic 
characters, or figured in the plates. See the Crustacea of the Voyage of the Samarang, 
pp. 55, 57. pl. 12. f. 5, pl. 13. f. 2. 5. 
It is only since the foregoing paper has been in the press, that I have had an oppor- 
 tunity of seeing the magnificent work of Mr. James D. Dana, on the Crustacea obtained 
in the United States exploring expedition under the command of Mr. Charles Wilkes f — — 
the United States Navy. This work reflects equal credit on the author, and on the — | 
American Government for the liberal and handsome manner in which it has been 
published. | 
In this publication two species only are described as belonging to the present family, 
and of these one appears to me at least very doubtful as to its relation to it. I shall 
quote the characters of both as they are given by Mr. Dana :— 3 
* [PHIS LONGIPES. Carapax parcè granulosus, suborbicularis, non latior quam longus 
[longior}, armatus spinis duabus longissimis lateralibus latitudine carapacis n 
brevioribus (unà in latere utroque) et duabus minutis antero-lateralibus, duabus 
parvulis postero-lateralibus, et unà posticà corporis dimidium longitudine fere 
æquante. Frons bilobatus parc prominens. Pedes 8 postici prælongi.”? | 
Iphis longipes, Danä in op. cit. p. 396. t. 95. f, 4. 
i Taken from the stomach of a Tetraodon, among the reefs of Vití Lebu, Feejee Islands." 
Of this species I have only to observe, that its form and characters rather tend to in- 
d a doubt which I have before entertained of the propriety of generically separating. 
e species of Iphis and Arcania. They appear to pass into each other by the present 
species on the one hand, and by Iphis novem-spinosa of Adams and White, which I have 
already transferred to Arcania, on the other. » 
