312 MR. BELL, HOR^E CARCINOLOGICE ; 



The form and size of the lateral process vary considerably. In some it is cylindrical, in 

 others it is somewhat conical ; in some it is either direct or even bent slightly backwards, 

 in others the apex is turned forward ; in some there is a filiform appendage at its apex, in 

 others there is not a vestige of this armature. The degree of granulation of the different 

 parts also varies. 



With respect to I. inerniis of Leach, I see no difference but what might be supposed to 

 depend upon great age ; and the distinction is really less on examining the actual speci- 

 mens, than appears to be the case from merely a comparison of the figm-es. Under these 

 circumstances, I have ventured to give the references to the three supposed species, as 

 synonyms of the old Cancer Cylindrus of Pabricius. 



I have already observed that the genus Sarrovia of Adams and White has no rela- 

 tion whatever to the present family. Iphiculus of the same authors, arranged by them 

 amongst the Letjcosiad^, but stated in the same place to belong to the Parthenopid^, 

 appears to me to be nearly allied to the former family, and most probably associated with 

 them. Certainly it has no near affinity with the Parthenopid^. Tlos may be safely 

 considered as allied to the Letjcosiad^. Unfortunately, neither the eyes, the orbits, 

 the antennulge, the antennary fosste, nor the foot-jaws, are mentioned in the generic 

 characters, or figured in the plates. See the Crustacea of the Voyage of the Samarang, 

 pp. 55, 57. pi. 12. f. 5, pi. 13. f. 2. 5. 



It is only since the foregoing paper has been in the press, that I have had an oppor- 

 tunity of seeing the magnificent work of Mr. James D. Dana, on the Crustacea obtained 

 in the United States exploring expedition under the command of Mr. Charles Wilkes of 

 the United States Navy. This work reflects equal credit on the author, and on the 

 American Government for the liberal and handsome manner in which it has been 

 published. 



In this publication two species only are described as belonging to the present family, 

 and of these one appears to me at least very doubtful as to its relation to it. I shall 

 qviote the characters of both as they are given by Mr. Dana : — 



" Iphis longipes. Carapax parce granulosus, suboi'bicularis, non latior quam longus 

 [longior], armatus spinis duabus longissimis lateraHbus latitudine carapacis vix 

 brevioribus (una in latere utroque) et duabus minutis antero-lateralibus, dualms 

 parvulis postero-lateralibus, et una postic^ corporis dimidium longitudine fere 

 sequante. Frons bUobatus parce prominens. Pedes 8 postici prselongi," 



Iphis longipes, Dana in op. clt. p. 396. t. 25. f. 4. 



"Taken from the stomach of a Tetraodon, among the reefs ofViti Lebu, Feejee Islands." 



Of this species I have only to observe, that its form and characters rather tend to in- 

 crease a doubt which I have before entertained of the propriety of generically separating 

 the species of Iphis and Arcania. They appear to pass into each other by the present 

 species on the one hand, and by Iphis novem-spinosa of Adams and White, which I have 

 already transferred to Arcania, on the other. 



