89 



antennae is apparently regenerated, the lobes or teeth being less in number and somewhat 

 otherwise shaped. In the other female with eggs that measures 31 mm., the distal squame carries 

 also only four teeth, besides a quite small tooth on the inner margin, and the external one of 

 these teeth appears much broader than the rest. In two young specimens, male and female, 

 the posterior tooth, in the middle line of the carapace, appears somewhat higher than usually. 



In this species occurs, as has already been described, a double row of five squamiform 

 prominences between the posterior median tooth that overhangs the cervical groove and the 

 intestinal region. In Pfeffer's type specimen from unknown locality each of these five prominences 

 is covered at its base by a smaller one, not, however, in the other type. In the greater part 

 of the ''Siboga"-specimens, as e. g. in those from Stat. 33, these secondary prominences are 

 wanting, but they are present in the larger female from Stat. 3 1 3 and [irove thus to be 

 individual. 



In most specimens, as e. g. in those from .Stat. 33, the ground-colour is more or less 

 dark-gray, the squamiform prominences on the abdominal somites being whiti.sh or sometimes 

 of a pale bluish tinge; the carinae on the 2"'' and 3'''' somites are often blood-red coloured 

 posteriorly. The lobes and teeth of the distal squame are of a dark slate colour and their 

 margin is white. Sometimes there is a pale-red fleck on the cardiac region. The two males 

 from Stat. 164 present a different colour. The ground-colour is of a pale yellowish gray, 

 but the carapace is traversed by a broad brown band that runs across the cardiac region to 

 the lateral margins; in the larger specimen it extends farther backward than in the younger 

 one and in both it reaches laterally nearly to the orbits. The 4 posterior pairs of thoracic legs 

 are marked, in all the specimens, with four slate-coloured rings, four on each leg, precisely as 

 in Scyll. sordidus (Stimps.). 



It appears to me very probable that Scyll. jMartensii Pfeffer is identical with Scyll. ricgosus 

 Latr. (H. Milne-Edw.\rus, Hist. Nat. Crustaces, II, p. 283) from Pondichery. The description, 

 indeed, agrees perfectly well with Pfeffer's type specimens. The question, however, must 

 remain undecided, because, as Prof. Bouvier of Paris informs me, the type specimen of Scyll. 

 rus;osiis Latr. does no more exist in the Paris Museum, having very probably been destroyed 

 in the war of 1870. 



I examined also a specimen from Hongkong, which was referred by Pfeffer (1. c.) to 

 Scyll. rtigosiis Latr. In my opinion this specimen should be referred to Scyll. lubercnlatiis 

 (Sp. Bate), described in the Challenger Report. The 1=*' tooth of the di.stal squame of the outer 

 antennae, namely that at the outer angle, is rather broad, truncate, but in the figures of the 

 "Challenger" work it appears narrower than the following. In Pfeffer's specimen the four 

 teeth on the outer margin of the proximal squame are carinate and the antero-lateral angles 

 of the carapace are less prominent, but these are perhaps individual differences. 



IMilne-Edw.vrus describes Scyll. rugosiis as "tres-voisine" to Scyll. arcius (L.); this is 

 the case with Scyll. Alartensii, but not with Scyll. tubcrctdatus, because in the latter the structure 

 and areolation of the abdomen, that are not described in the "Histoirc Xaturelle des Crustaces", 

 are quite different from what is observed in Scyll. Martciisii. 



SIBOGA-K.\ri:iHTlK .NXXIXa-. 12 



