THE SPECIES OF AEGLA — SCHMITT 435 



et Crustaces), Museu National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, it might 

 be a very old, dried specimen carrying the name A. laevis without 

 other data. 



Griffith (1833, p. 184, pi. 7, fig. 2), who, in his "Animal Kingdom 

 of Cuvier," supplied a colored illustration of A. laevis^ which appears 

 to be a crudely done, reversed reproduction of Desmarest's figure, 

 adds nothing in the way of a locality or specific characters to the 

 still scanty knowledge of this crustacean. 



In his classic "Histoire Naturelle des Crustaces," H. Milne-Edwards 

 (1837, p. 258) gave a rather extensive discussion of the genus, and a 

 concise description of the species, which, however, is of no more than 

 generic value today. Also, he is the first to give the species a home : 

 "Habite les cotes du Chili." 



The "Disciples Edition" of Cuvier's "Le Kegne Animal" (1837,^ p. 

 124, pi. 47, fig. 3) has an Aegla in color, together with some details 

 in black and white, that is quite different from the figures that ante- 

 dated it. The Paris Museum may have come into possession of better 

 material of what was taken to be J., laevis, but it is difficult to believe 

 that this particular drawing could have been based on the original 

 type, for, in spite of its more natural appearance the lateral margin 

 of the anterior portion of the carapace is most certainly not accurate, 

 no matter what the species represented may actually be. 



The "aeglee lisse" of these several authors next appears as '"''Aeglea 

 laevigata''' in H. Milne-Edwards and Lucas' account (1843 [1844], 

 p. 34) of the Crustacea of d'Orbigny's "Voyage dans I'Amerique 

 Meridionale," surely an unintentional mistranslation of the French 

 common name of what was known in the scientific literature of the 

 day as A. laevis. 



It may be that all the foregoing records were based on the same 

 species, but it was given to Nicolet (1849, p. 200; Atlas, pi. 2, fig. 1) 

 to add a second and unmistakably new species to the genus, A. denti- 

 cul<ita, in Gay's monumental "Historia Fisica y Politica de Chile." 

 His well-characterized and distinctively figured species is readily iden- 

 tifiable. On the other hand, his description of A. laevis, which he 

 unfortunately did not figure, leaves much to be desired. It cannot 

 be distinguished from any of the species, except A. denticulata, now 

 known to inhabit Chile. Nicolet's A. denticulata was so at variance 

 with what most authors, myself included, thought a species of Aegla 

 could possibly look like, that it always was believed to have been 



' In a little note seeking to establish the date of issue of the crustacean plates of Cuvier's 

 "Le R6gne Animal" (Disciples Edition) I stated (1937, p. 151) that no reference to this 

 particular edition was to be found in the second volume of Milne-Edwards' "Histoire 

 Naturelle des Crustaces" (1837). In the course of reviewing the history of Aegla laevis, I 

 find that I was mistaken and that a number of the Disciples Edition plates are cited in 

 that volume. This oversight in no way invalidates my contention that the date of the 

 crustacean plates in the Disciples Edition should be 1837. 



