20 



coxae are armed on their anterior border with 2 or 3 sjjinules, there is a short spinule at the 

 distal end of the upper border of the merus and there is a longer one at the distal end of the 

 upper border of the carpus; a shorter spinule occurs near the far end of the outer border of 

 this joint and this shorter spinule is preceded by a row of microscopical spinules that reaches 

 to the middle of the carpus. 



The following legs that gradually diminish in length, are unarmed, like also the coxae 

 of the 3^'^ pair; these legs are, however, slightly granular on their lower side, except carpus 

 and chela, while the upper margin of the palm of the 4"^ pair is finely spinulose. The coxae ol 

 the 5"^ pair are, in the adult male, distinctly granular on the outer half of their lower surface 

 and the dactj-lus is almost twice as long as the immobile finger; in the adult female the coxae 

 of these legs are smooth and they are perfectly chelate, both fingers being equally long. In 

 the young female from Stat. 48 the dactylus is still distinctly longer than the immobile finger. 



The epipod of the external maxillipeds is a small papilla, about ^o mm. long, while those 

 of the four thoracic legs are only membranous expansions of the base of the podobranchs. 



Measurements of the four largest specimens. 



Length of the body, measured in the middle line, rostral teeth included 



Length of the carapace 



„ n ^ abdomen 



Distance between the tips of the spines at the antero-lateral angles . 



Greatest width in front of the cervical groove 



Length of the telson 



Width of the telson 



Length of the i^t pair of legs 



rth 



D B 



merus 

 carpus 

 chela 

 palm 



fingers 



of the I St pair of legs 



4 



9 

 86'/, 



38'/^ 

 48 



19'/. 

 28'/, 



15'/. 

 8 

 [04 



36'U 



23 



30 



18'/. 



30 



13 



17 



N° I and 2, Station 85; N" 3 and 4, Station 314. 



This species now bears such a close resemblance to Stereovi. nana (S. I. Smith), that I 

 wonder why Col. Alcock has made no mention of it, neither in his first description of 1894, nor 

 in his work of 1901. This species which was described in 1884 (in: S. I. Smith, Report on 

 the Decapod Crustacea of the Albatross Dredgings off the East coast of the United States in 

 1883, Wash. 1884, p. 359 (15)) and which was figured in the Report on the same Dredgings 

 in 1884, Wash. 1886, pi. VII, Fig. 1 and \a, occurs off the East coast of the United States, 

 while a closely allied variety was dredged in 1891 by the "Albatross" in the Gulf of Panama 

 (W. Faxon, in: Memoirs Mus. Compar. Zoology at Harvard College, Vol. XVIII, Cambridge, 



