108 DK. 0. CHILTOX OX THE 



in some points tliat appeared very definite and well marlved, and lie therefore established 

 for them the new species Ligia quadi-ata. All specimens subsequently examined, both 

 by Mr. Thomson and myself, were found to agree with the characters as laid down for 

 i. quadrata, and thus to differ from L. iiovi-zealandice, Dana, and hence in our " Critical 

 List of the Crustacea Malacostraca of New Zealand," * under the heading Ligla novi- 

 zealandUe, the remark is made " I do not know this species, G. M. T." The points in 

 which Dana's description differed from our specimens are : — 



{(i) The surface of the thorax and abdomen " covered with very short hairs.'" 



{b) Base of caudal stylets " nearly as long as the abdomen." 



((?) Branches of caudal stylets " qaite unequal " and the longer " hardly as long as 

 the thorax." 



In none of the specimens that I have examined could the dorsal siu'face be said to be 

 " covered with very short hairs," and Mr. Thomson tells me that no liairs are to 

 be found in living specimens, which he has recently re-examined at my request, as I 

 thought it just possible that the hairs might have got worn off in the spirit sj^ecimens 

 tlaat I brought from New Zealand with me. I have been anxious to get for comparison 

 specimens from the Bay of Islands, where Dana's tyjie specimens Avere obtained, and 

 though I have not been successful in this, I have in Mr. Thomsoa's collection specimens 

 from Waiwera, a locality nortii of Auckland and not very far remote from the Bay of 

 Islands, and I find that these differ a little from our South Island specimens, and thougli 

 I regard them as undoul)tedly the same species, they show some slight approach towards 

 Dana's description. Thus the antennae are slightly longer and more slender and 

 distinctly more hairy than in the typical specimens of Ligla quadrata, and the surface 

 of the body when viewed with a higher power shows, especially at the edges of the 

 segments, very minute little setfe which, though they scarcely project beyond the surface 

 and are not deserving of the name of "very short hairs," must, I think, have given the 

 appearance which Dana has thus described. In South Island specimens these minute 

 points are much less marked but can occasionally be made out. The uropoda in the 

 "Waiwera specimens are a little more slender than in South Island ones, but as in them 

 the base is only about half as long as the abdomen, and I have not seen any in which the 

 base is '* nearly as long as the abdomen," but it must be remembered that in young 

 specimens with which Dana perliaps liad to deal the uropoda are considerably longer in 

 proportion than in fully-grown specimens. The branches of the uroj)oda are again 

 usually of nearly the same length, though the outer one is generally a little the shorter, 

 and the variation in their relative lengths is pretty considerable, and specimens in which 

 the difference was more marked than usual may have led Dana to describe them as 

 " quite unequal." The longest branch is, however, always much shorter than the thorax, 

 and I must regard Dana's statement that it is "hardly as long as the thorax" as an 

 unintentional exaggeration or else a mistake for " hardly as long as the abdomen.''' 



In his " Catalogue of the New Zealand Crustacea," Miers refers specimens in the 

 British Museum to Dana's species without any question beyond remarking that "the 

 rami of the caudal aj^pendages are equal except in one specimen, where they are slightly 



* Trausiiotious New Zealand Institute, xvili. p. 157. 



