48 iS. I. Smith — Crustaceans of the Atlantic Coast. 



fathoms ; also found at low-water mark!, among rocks, at Ram Island 

 Ledge, and dredged in 48 to 64 fathoms, mud, 16 to 20 miles off 

 Cape Elizabeth. In the Bay of Fundy !, 1864, 1868, 1870 and 1872, 

 it was found in abundance at about the same depths as in Casco Bay, 

 was rarely found at low-water mark, and, in 1 872, was dredged in 

 77 fathoms, mud and stones, off Head Harbor, near Eastport, and 

 also in 97 to 105 fathoms, gravel and sand, off White Head, Grand 

 Menan. In 1873, it was dredged, eight miles south off Monhegan 

 Island !, off the coast of Maine, in 64 fathoms, mud and sand ; and 

 in 1874, on Cashe's Ledge !, in 27 fathoms, rocks and gravel. In the 

 region of St. George's Banks!, 1872: 30 and 40 fsxthoms, sand; 50 

 and 60 fiithoms, sand and shells; 65 fathoms, dead shells; and 150 

 fathoms, sandy mud. About thirty miles southeast one-half east 

 from Cape Sable!, Nova Scotia, 88 fathoms, very fine sand, 1877. 

 In Bedford Basin!, Halifax, 35 fathoms, soft mud, 1877. In and 

 near Halifax Harbor !, 1877, 15 to 42 fathoms, sand, sand and red algae, 

 rocks, mud and stones. Gulf of St. Lawrence ! (Whiteaves). Labra- 

 dor ! (Packard). Greenland (Kruyer, Norman). Bering Sea (Brandt, 

 Stimpson). In the European seas, upon the coasts of Scandinavia 

 and the British Islands. 



On account of the apparent confusion of this species with the next 

 I am not able to give the range of either of them upon the European 

 coast with any certainty. 



Eupagurus Kroyeri stimpson. 



This species and the last, although very closely allied and having 

 apparently very similar geographical distribution, appear to be 

 entitled to rank as distinct species ; at least I have not been able to 

 discover, in examining several hundreds of specimens, any which 

 are intermediate between the two forms indicated by Stimpson. 

 The Kroyeri attains nearly or quite as great size as the pnhescens, 

 but Stimpson had only small specimens of Kroyeri and the differ- 

 ences which he mentions in the relative lengths of the chelipeds and 

 ambulatory legs do not hold good for full-grown specimens. The 

 other differences which he points out, however, are quite sufficient for 

 separating the species. The difference in the amount of pubescence 

 is usually fully sufficient to distinguish them at a glance, but the form 

 and ornamentation of the chelipeds afford the best distinctions. The 

 tubercles and spines,— except the single series along the edge of the 

 dorsal carina of the propodus of the left, or smaller, cheliped, — are 



