MARINE CRUSTACEANS. 445 



there would have been a few specimens at least in the collection. And without going so 

 far as to say that the genus Squilla is quite unrepresented in this locality, it is yet 

 sufficiently obvious that, for some reason, the conditions are more suitable generally to Gono- 

 dactylus chiragra. The bathymetric distribution, so far as this collection is concerned, ranges 

 from littoral to 44 /. (fathoms). 



1. Gonodactylus chiragra (Fabr.) Herbst. 



Fabricius, Spec. Insect, p. 515 (1781), Mant. Insect, p. 334 (1787), Ent. Syst. iii. 1, p. 513 

 (1793), and Ent. Syst. Suppl. p. 417 (1798) : Herbst, Cancer (inantis) chiragra, Krab. u. Krehs. 

 II. p. 100, PI. XXXIV. Fig. 2 (1796): M.-Edw., Hist. Nat. Crust, ii. p. 528 (1837): Dana, 

 U.S. Expl. Exp. Crust, p. 623, PI. XLI. Fig. 5 (1852): Heller, Novara-Reise, Crust, p. 126 (1865): 

 V. Martens, Arch. f. Naturg. 38, p. 147 (1872): Miers, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (5) v. p. 118, 1880: 

 Brooks, 'Challenger' Stoniatopoda, p. 56 (1886), G. glabrous, id. p. 62, PI. XIV. Fig. 5, PI. XV. 

 Fig. 7: Henderson, Trans. Linn. Soc. Zool. (2) v. p. 454 (1893): G. glaber, id. loc. cit.: Bigelow, 

 Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. xvii. p. 494 (1894) : G. spinosus, id. I.e. p. 493 : Hansen, G. oerstedii, 

 Plankton-Exp. Isop. Curnac. u. Stomatop. p. 65 (footnote) (1895) : Borradaile, Proc. Zool. Soc, p. 32, 

 PI. VI. Fig. 8 (1898): G. espinosus, id. p. 35, PI. V. Fig. 5: id. Willey's Zool. Res. Pt iv. 

 p. 400 (1900): de Man, Zool. Jahrb. Syst. x. p. 694 (1898): Nobili, G. festae, Boll. Mus. Zool. 

 Torino, xvi. p. 53 (sep. copy 1902). 



The synonymy of this species is, at present, rather confused, owing, no doubt, to the 

 considerable range of variation exhibited by it, and it is unfortunate, from one point of 

 view, that Fabricius is not sufficiently detailed in his description of that part of the animal, 

 viz. the 6th abdominal segment and the telson, which presents so much variation; the rest 

 of his account is particularly clear and complete. This full description is to be found twice, 

 once in the Species Insectorum (1781) and again, with but slight alteration, in the Ento- 

 mologia Systematica (1793); in his other two works he refers to it only with a brief diagnosis. 

 What he has to say about the hinder part of the animal is the same in both cases : — 

 " Abdomen. . .decimo segmento lineis sex elevatis spinosis, ultimo lineis elevatis spinosis margi- 

 neque postico spinis serrate." Now the latter part of this may signify one of two things. 

 Either it may mean that the three carinae of the dorsal surface are "raised and spinous" 

 while the posterior border is "serrated with spines" corresponding to the four or six marginal 

 spines' ; or it may be that the words ' lineis elevatis spinosis' refer to the four or six marginal 

 spines with their forwardly-running carinae, while the spines with which the hinder border 

 is serrated may be the numerous small spines between the marginals^. In the Spec. Ins. 

 and the Ent. Syst. Suppl. Fabricius refers his species to the Squilla arenaria marina of 

 Rumphius, and examination of Rumphius' plate renders it more likely that the second of 

 the two alternatives is correct, since the dorsal carinae are not represented as spinous. 

 Fabricius' type specimens do not, so far as I know, now exist; there are, at any rate, no 

 examples of Stomatopods in the collection of his types at the Kiel Museum, as I am 

 informed by Dr Immermann of that Museum, who very kindly examined the specimens 

 preserved there for me. Accordingly it is quite impossible to decide which variety Fabricius 

 was dealing with, though, as there is no doubt he had at least one of the varieties of this 

 animal before him, there is no difficulty about retaining his specific name. I pass now to 

 the consideration of the forms described by succeeding authors : — 



1 Corresponding to var. smithii or var. glabrous. - Corresponding to any variety of the species as a whole. 



57—2 



