1900.] FROM THE FALKLAND ISLANDS. 531 



Gen. Pabalomis White. 



1856. Paralomis, White, Pr. Zool. Soc. Lond. vol. xxiv. p. 134. 



1858. Paralomis, Stimpson, Pr. Ac. Philad. p. 231 (Prodromus, 

 p. 69). 



1871. Lithodes, Cunningham, Tr. Linn. Soc. Lond. vol. xxvii 

 p. 494. 



1881. Paralomis, Miers, Pr. Zool. Soc. Lond. p. 71. 



1888. ParaZom/s, Henderson, 'Challenger' Auomura, Eeports, 

 vol. xxvii. p. 44. 



1892. Paralomis, Ortmann, Zool. Jahrb. vol. vi. p. 321. 



1893. Paralomis, Stebbiug, Hist. Crust., Internat. Sci. Ser. 

 vol. Ixxiv. p. 1 54. 



1894. Echinocerus, Benedict, Pr. U.S. jNTat.Mus. vol. xvii. p. 484. 



1895. Paralomis, Bouvier, Ann. Sci. Nat. ser. 7, vol. xviii. p. 185. 



1895. Paralo7nis, Paxon, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard Coll. 

 vol. xviii. p. 44 (Crust. ' Albatross '). 



1896. Paralomis, Bouvier, Ann. Sci. Nat. ser. 8, vol. i. p. 25. 

 1899. Paralomis, Alcock & Anderson, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 



ser. 7, vol. iii. p. 15. 



This genus was established by White for the species named 

 Lithodes granulosa by Jacquiuot in the Atlas of the ' Voy. au Pole 

 Sud.' It is strange that White should establish a genus, without 

 any serious attempt at definition, on a figure which he pronounces 

 to be " exti-emely bad." He does not explain how under the 

 circumstances he was able to identify the specimen " in the British 

 Museum " with the species in question. His observations that the 

 species " has the beak scarcely projecting at all beyond the extra- 

 orbital angle," that " the carapace and upper parts of its legs are 

 thickly invested, as in gome of the Canceridce, with close straw- 

 berry-surfaced granules, closely pressed together," and that it is a 

 small species, " more allied to Lomis," are all the help he gives for 

 distinguishing his new genus from Lithodes, not to speak of his own 

 genera Echidnocerus and Pdalocerus. 



Two or three years later Stimpson gave distinguishing cha- 

 racters for ten genera of Lithodidse, in two groups. The second 

 with the body depressed, comprised Lomis of Milne-Edwards 

 with Brandt's Dermaturus and Hapalogaster. Of these genera 

 Bouvier in 1894 gives reasons for removing Lomis entirely from 

 the Lithodinea and founding upon it a separate section, the Lomis- 

 inea (answering to the Lomina suggested by Brandt in 1851) ; 

 but the other two he retains with Placetron Schalfeew, 1892, as con- 

 stituting one division of the Lithodinea, the Hapalogas'trica of 

 Brandt. Benedict's CEdignathus is made a synonym of Dermaturus 

 and his Lepeopus of Placetron, de Haan's Lomis dentata falling 

 into the genus Hapalogaster as arranged by Stimpson. The latter 

 author's first group, with body convex, comprised Lithodes, Echid- 

 nocerus, Paralomis, Rhinolithodes, Acantholithm, Phyllolithodes, and 

 Cryptoliihodes, the first estabhshed by Latreille, the next two by 

 White, Acantholithus by Stimpson, and the remainder by Brandt 



[15J 



