84 



PORTUNID^. 



many respects the British species more nearly resembles 

 Poh/h'ms Henslowii, than it does Platyonyclms hiinistidatus ; 

 nor can I imagine, if the two in question be reduced to 

 one generic name, how Folyh'ms can consistently be con- 

 sidered as distinct. 



It is to be remarked, that Edwards throughout quotes 

 Leach's genus Portumnus as Portunus^ from which it is 

 of course distinct ; and although it was perhaps undesirable 

 to give to two genera so nearly allied, names so similarly 

 spelt, yet I cannot consider this as a sufficient ground for 

 changing the generic name from Portumnus to Platyony- 

 cJius, as Latreille has done. 



I have not had an opportunity of examining an Ame- 

 rican species, first described by Herbst, and afterwards b}' 

 Say, and referred by Latreille and Edwards to Platyony- 

 chus, under the name of PI. ocellatus^ and therefore I am 

 unable to state positively its relations, particularly as the 

 abdomen has not been described by either of the naturalists 

 who have noticed it. But I believe it will be found to 

 belong to Platyonychus, as I have above restricted that 

 S'enus. 



