434 PROCEEDmiGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 91 



one time. I am also deeply grateful to the many good friends and 

 scientific institutions who helped me with specimens, pertinent in- 

 formation, facilities of various kinds, and assistance in the field and 

 otherwise. Most, if not all, of these are mentioned either in the 

 foregoing recapitulation or in the following text. 



The manuscript was helpfully criticized and typed by my secre- 

 tary. Miss Lucile McCain. The drawings are the work of Mrs. Aime 

 Awl, staff artist to the department of biology of the United States 

 National Museum. The photographs and prints were made by 

 Gurney I. Hightower and F. B. Kestner, of the Museum's photo- 

 graphic staff. I am also indebted to Dr. Olga Hartman, of the Allan 

 Hancock Foundation, and Dr. Walter Weymouth, of Stanford 

 University, for some very helpful suggestions. 



HISTORICAL REVIEW 



In 1818 (pi. 308, fig. 2) Latreille figured, without description, a 

 new crustacean to which he gave the name Galathea laevis, perhaps 

 unaware that his species was from fresh water and that the genus 

 in which he placed it was exclusively marine. Not more than two 

 years later Leach (1820 [1821], p. 49) quite correctly observed that 

 Latreille's species represented not only a new species, but a new 

 genus as well. This he named Aegla. 



According to Dr. K. A. Philippi (1894, p. 372 [p. 4 of sep.]), and 

 the late Edwyn C. Reed in a letter to Dr. Mary J. Rathbun dated 

 June 6, 1895, a crustacean of this type was recognized (but not de- 

 scribed) as early as 1782 (pp. 206, 347; 1789, p. 182) by Molina in his 

 "Saggio sulla Storia Naturale del Chile" as Cancer apancora. 



So far as I am aware, it was Desmarest (1825, p. 187, pi. 33, fig. 2) 

 who, without contributing any additional information, introduced the 

 incorrect spelling of the generic name, Aeglea^ which all subsequent 

 authors, except Dr. Mary J. Rathbun (1910, p. 602), seem to have 

 followed, even Latreille (1829, p. 84) himself. Miss Rathbun, how- 

 ever, called attention to the fact that Leach spelled the name Aegla, 

 not Aeglea. 



The figure of Aegla laevis that Desmarest published along with 

 his brief description is very similar to Latreille's, yet in some re- 

 spexjts it is different enough in the shape of the chelae and in the 

 addition of orbital spines to have been taken from some other speci- 

 men. If based on the same specimen, Desmarest's is the better figure. 

 Both Leach and Desmarest state that the material upon which their 

 remarks were based was to be found in the collections of the Paris 

 Museum. Neither made mention of a locality. There is now no 

 specimen in that museum that can be definitely linked with either of 

 these authors, or with Latreille, for that matter, unless, as I am 

 informed by Dr. Louis Fage, of the Laboratoire de Zoologie (Vers 



