808 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vouxxvu 



MUNIDA GRACILIPES Faxon. 



Munida i/rucUlpes Faxon, Bull. Mu.. C'onip. Z0..I., XXIV, 1893, p. 179; Mem. 

 Mils. Comp. y^ooL, XVIII, 1895, p. 77, pi. xvi, tigs. 2-21). 



(hilf of Piuuinia. 



MUNIDA GRACILIS Henderson. 



]l„ni<hi ^/mcnis Henderson, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (5), XVI, 1885, p. 412; 

 Cluiilenger Report, XXVII, 1888, Anomura, p. U3, pi. xiv, tig. 4. 



Challenger station 166; depth, '276 fathoms, west of New Zealand. 

 Two specimens. 



MUNIDA GRANULATA Henderson. 



Munida gmnulata Henderson, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (5), XVI, 1885, p. 409; 

 Challenger Report, XXVII, 1888, Anomura, p. 133, pi. xiv, tig. 3. 

 Challenger station 173; depth, 315 fathoms, off Fiji Islands. Nine 



specimens. 



Henderson says of this (page 134): ''The second and third abdommal 

 segments bear six spiniiles each, four of which are arranged on the 

 anterior and two near the posterior margin ; the third segment bears live 

 spinules, a mesial one l)eing present on the posterior margin, which is 

 somewhat prominent."^ Did he not mean third armed segment rather 

 than third segment, which he had just described^ His figure shows 

 spines on the second segment only. 



MUNIDA GREGARIA (Fabricius). 



Galathea gregaria Fabricius, Ent. Syst., II, 1793, p. 473. 



Grimothea gregaria Leach, Diet. d. Sci. Nat., XVIII, 1820, p. 50.-Dana, U. S. 



Expl. Expd. Crust., XIII, 1852, Crust., Pt. 1, p. 483, pi. xxxi, fig. 1. 

 (himothea nonv zelandiR' YiLno-L, Passage de Venus, Mission de Vile Campbell, 



1874, p. 426. (Institute de France.) 

 Munida gregaria Miers, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1881, p. 73. 

 Jlfumdasut™<70.sa Henderson, Challenger Report, XXVII, 1888, Anomura, p. 124. 

 Munida gregaria A. Milne-Edwards, Mission Scient. du Cap Horn, Crust., 1891,, I 

 p. F. 32, pi. II, tig. 1. 

 Guerin's figure of " Orlmotea gregaria''^ shows eyestalks as long as 

 those of the New Zealand specimen, but it seems to have little else in ^ 

 connnon. A. Milne-Edwards has given the best account of the differ- j 

 ences separating this species from M. suhrugosa and has shown in a good 

 figure the differences observed between its own adult and immature . 

 forms. In my opinion the question of the identity of the Cape Hornij 

 species with that from New Zealand remains yet an oi^en question,' 

 which can only be settled by comparison of a large series of specimensi 

 from both localities. 



The vouno- of Munida qreqaria differ more from the adult than is 

 the case with the young of any other species represented in the col- 



"GuC^rin, Voyage de la Coquille, II, Pt. 2, 18.30, p. 32; Atlas, pi. iii, tig. 1. 



