BY J. S. KINGSLEY. 109 



antennular flagella, the two outer (and stouter) branches being united 

 for about a lifth of their length. Antennal scale narrow and very long, 

 nearly equalling the rostrum in length. Antennal flagellum slightly 

 longer than the whole body. External maxilliped hirsute, small, slender 

 and not reaching beyond the tip of the antennular peduncle. First 

 pair of feet slender, extending half way between tip of antennular 

 peduncle and the apex of the rostrum. Second pair also slender; 

 ischium, meros, and carpus sub-equal. Palm inflated, fingers about 

 equal to palm, depressed, slender and gaping, and extending their whole 

 length beyond the rostrum. Remaining feet slender, propodal joints 

 spinulose beneath. Telson slender, triangular, with four dorsal aciculi 

 and its apex armed with four small spines, the two outer ones the 

 shorter. Length of body 29 mm., carapax 13 mm., second pair 15 mm. 

 The specimens on which this species is founded are in the museum 

 of the Peabody Academy of Science at Salem, Mass. (no. 171), and 

 Avere brought from Baker's Island, North Pacific, by Capt. Joseph 

 Hammond, who for many years has been in charge of the Exhibition 

 Rooms of the Academy and for whom I have named the species. Its 

 closest relative seems to be L. modestus Heller (Verh. k. k. zool. bot. 

 Gesellschaft in Wien xii, pi. 527, 1862) from Shanghai, from which it 

 appears to difi'er in the shape of the rostrum, hands, etc. 



Genus Anchistia Dana. 



Anchistia Americana, Kingsley, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, 

 1878, p. 96. 

 A few details of this species are given on plate II, fig. 10. 



Genus ALPHEUS Fabeu. 

 (Including Betceus, Dana.) 



Notwithstanding the remarks of my friend Mr. Lockington (Ann. & 

 Mag. Nat. Hist. V, 1, p. 466, 1878), I am still of the opinion that these 

 two genera should be united and the examination of many hundred 

 specimens of the two forms in the largest museums of America, only 

 renders me more certain of my position. Mr. Miers says (Proc. Zool. 

 Soc, 1879, p. 52) : "There is probably scarcely any genus of Crus- 

 tacea in which the species are more numerous, and which more greatly 

 needs revision than the present," with which I fully agree. I com- 

 menced a revision some three years ago, but for several reasons I have 

 been unable to finish it. Moreover, some sheets of my manuscript 

 having been mislaid I cannot give this list of species that complete- 

 ness which I could wish and which it once possessed. Still it is to be 



