13 



hollow that catches the knee of the 2nd and 3rd joints of the antennnlary 

 peduncle when flexed. The eyes are well formed : the terminal joint of the 

 eyestalk is barrel-shaped mucli as in Homola, but the slender basal joint is short 

 or obsolescent, so that the eyes do not appreciably project beyond the edge of 

 the orbital facet. 



The antennules and antennae are identical with those of Homola. 



The mouth-parts also are very like those of Homola, but as the outer border 

 of the merus of the external maxillipeds is hardly at all expanded these append- 

 ages are even more pediform th.an in Homola. 



Chelipeds slender, spiny, equal. Legs of the first three pair long, with 

 broad compressed meropodites. Fourth pair of legs, dorsal in position, short, 

 very slender, cheliform, their dactylus, which is many times shorter than their 

 propodus, shutting down against and co-terminous with the slightly expanded 

 distal end of the propodus. 



The abdomen of the male consists of seven separate segments. 



In general form Hypsophrys resembles Homola harhata, but it differs from 

 Homola in the following particulars : — 



1. The eyestalks are like those of Dromia, the long slender basal joint of 

 Homola being reduced to next to nothing. 



2. Though there are no true orbits there are distinct orbital facets, and 

 the homologies of these with the orbits of Dromia — in respect both of conform- 

 ation and of common use for eyes and antennules — are immistakeable. 



3. The external maxillipeds are unequivocally pediform, the merus beino' 

 hardly broader than the ischium. 



4. The fourth (last) pair of legs have the subchelse or chelfe quite different 

 in form : the propodite is long and is sUghtly expanded at its distal end, and 

 the dactylus is a minute joint, ever so much smaller than the propodite, that 

 shuts down against the distal border of the latter like the blade of a knife. 



Wood-Mason, who regarded the plane or hollow surface on the antero- 

 lateral wall of the carapace of Homola, against which the eye can be retracted, 

 as a commencing orbit, said that Hypsophrys has no orbits ; and this is quite 

 correct if the surface referred to be really an orbit. 



But if we compare the carapace of Hyp)sophrys with that of Dromia, and 

 regard the orbit as the hollow included between the rostrum and the antenna! 

 spine, then Hi/sophrys has far better orbits than Homola, for the space in 

 question is a distinct depression sharply marked off from the rest of the carapace 

 by a ridge. 



3 



