TO INDIAN CAllCINOLOGY. 3(J'.) 



comparing- thorn with De Man's type ; but they agrot; on the whole witli his description 

 and fio'iives. In all the specimens tlio distance between tlie external orbital angles is 

 about equal to the length of tlie (-arapace, the character on wliicli De Mm lays most 

 stress in distinguishing the species from N. hastatoides. The arms of the chelipedes are 

 variable in lengtli, but scarcely so sliort, even in females, as represented by De Man. 

 The cliaracters of tlie front are not stated in tlie original description, as the single type- 

 specimen wjis injured in this respect ; in the Martabau examples the two median frontal 

 teeth are obtuse and of small size, being less prominent than the lateral te(>th, whereas 

 in N. rugosiis, A. IMihnvEdw., with which De ^lan also compares his species, there is but 

 a single median tooth. The carapace carries seven antero-lateral teeth between the 

 external oi'bital angle and the long lateral spine, and these teeth, especially the anterior 

 ones, are usually shorter and more obtuse than represented in De Man's figure. The 

 postero-lateral angles of the carapace terminate in a somewhat obtuse tooth, whereas 

 De Man describes it as a spinule. I have some doubt whether the specimens are not 

 referable to a stunted varietv of N. Jiastatokles, for, on examiniui; a lari>-e series of the 

 latter, I find variation in the direction of the characters assigned to 2V. Andersoni ; the 

 characteristic black spot is, however, absent from the swimming dactylus. 



The largest specimen — a female Avitli ova — has the carapace only 9 mm. long and 

 14 ram. broad, not including the lateral spines. • 



Distrihittiori. Mergui {De Man). 



95. NeptTjNUS tubkkculosus, A. Milne-Edw. 



N. tubercuhms, A. Milne-Edwards, Xoiiv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. t. x. p. ;i'W. pi. xxxi. lijr. 5 (1861). 

 N. Brockii, De Man, Brock's Crnst. p. ■i2H, Taf. xiii. fi^. 4 (1888). 



Gulf of Martaban, four specimens {Oates). 



De Man, wh(>n describing N. Brockii, stated that it might possibly prove to b(^ identical 

 with N. ttiberculosits, and the aboA-e specimens certainly tend to confii'm this opinion. 

 There can be no doubt, I think, that they are identical with the speci(!S so well described 

 and figured by De Man. .\t the same time the median frontal projections are slightly 

 larger than shown in his figure, and they project as far forwards as the contiguous pair, 

 as in N. iiiberciilosns ; while, as regards the lateral spines of the carapace, the second, 

 fourth, and sixth are smaller than the others, an arrangement which is iiulieated in the 

 figures of both writers. In the largest s])ecimen th(> hand is almost as diiscribed by 

 De Man, though a riidimentary spine can be made out over the base of tlie mobile finger ; 

 in a younger specimen, a second small spine is seen near the articulation Avith the carpus 

 and on the outer surface, as described by A. Milne-Edwards, and his descri])tion was 

 (ividently taken from a young individual. I thus imagine the two species an; identical. 

 In aU probability we have to deal with a species in which certain spines, ])resent in the 

 young, diminish in size or altogether disappear in the adult. 



The carapace of the largest specimen (a female) is 12"5 mm. long and 22 mm. broad, 

 including the lateral s])ines ; it has a swelling on the left side, evid(Mitly due to the 

 presence of a Bopyrid. 



