2 l6 



of external maxillipeds forming together a continuous arcuate line. 

 First abdominal appendages of adult d" projecting a long wax- 

 beyond terminal segment of abdomen A', dolichophallus n. sp. 



I. Xenophthalmodcs dolkJiophallus n. sp. PI. 14. Fig. i. 



Stat. 4. Djangkar, east coast of Java. Depth 9 m. 5 cf (i juv.), i C juv. 



Stat. 51. Madura Bay, west coast of Flores. Depth 54—9° m. i <S ■ 



Stat. 205. Lohio Bay, Buton Strait, south of Celebes. Depth 22 mm. i -J juv. 



I am not quite certain about the validity of my species, for Richters" and de Max's 

 descriptions of A', moebii disagree in some points, but fortunately I could examine the specimen 

 of the latter author in the Leiden Museum. Both the species are very much alike: the greatest 

 breadth of the carapace, which is found far behind, only little exceeds its length, the fronto- 

 orbital border is less than one-half this greatest breadth, the eye-peduncles are globular, there 

 are scarcely any traces of subdivisions on the carapace, the chelae are largely compressed, 

 carinate, and the dactyli of the walking legs decrease regularly in size from the first to the 

 fourth pair. ^) The following points, however, appear to afford specific features : 

 i" The carapace is bare in A', moebii, only thickly fringed along anterior and lateral margins: 

 in the new species it is covered with a close pubescence, which, after removal, turns out 

 to conceal a fine granulation along the lateral margins. 

 2° The front, according to Richters and Alcock, is bilobed in anterior view, in A. moebii: 

 my specimens agree in this respect perfectly with Richters' fig. i on pi. 17, viz.: there 

 are two rounded lobes, separated by a rather deep notch. In de Max's specimen, which is 

 referred to A', moebii^ the anterior edge of the front is, on the contrary, scarcely notched 

 in the middle and regularly convex. 

 3° A', moebii is perfectly blind, according to Richters; .de Man observed, however, a very 

 small, punctiform eye at the end of the eye-stalk, but chiefly ventral; Alcock, again, states 

 that the species, of which 1 3 specimens from different localities could be examined, are devoid 

 of eyes; but in one very young specimen the eye is indeed pigmented. In the adult or half- 

 grown "Siboga" specimens there is a verj- faint speck of pigment on the ventral side ot 

 the eye-stalk, but in two very young specimens there is a stronglj- pigmented eye, even 

 partly visible in dorsal view, larger and more conspicuous than in de M.an's specimen. 

 4" In the literature I do not find anything regarding the epistome, except that it resembles that 

 of Typhlocarcinus ; in the specimen of X. moebii the free edge of the epistome is scarcely 

 prominent, thickened. In the new species this edge is markedly prominent, vertical, lamellar, 

 with a longitudinal sulcus in the middle. 

 5" The external maxillipeds of X. tnoebii are slender, the ischium is not broader than the 

 merus, the latter quadrangular, with a distinct angle between the anterior and the external 

 margin of the merus (see de Man, pi. 3, fig. 5 a). In Richters" figure 5 the ischium is 



l) This character has hitherto not been observed in the genus, it occurs also in Typhlocarcinus villosvs Stimpson (see p. 210) 

 and in Typhtocarcinops deeresctm Rathbun (see p. 214). 



68 



