84 Records of the Indian Museum. [Vol. X, 



Genus Saron, Thallwitz. 

 Saron marmoratus (Olivier). 



i86y. Hippolytc kraiissi, Bianconi, Spec. Zool. Mossambic, X\'ll. in 

 Mem. Acad. Sci. Bologna (2), IX, p. 209, pi. i, fig-. 2a. 



1878. Hippolyte kraussi, Hilgendorf, Monatsb. Akad. \Viss. Berlin, 

 p. 836. 



i8gS. Saron mavmoraius, Borradaile, Proc. Zool. Soc. I.ondon, p. 1009. 



1902. Saron marmoratus, Borradaile, in W'illey's Zool. Results, p. 413. 



1903. Saron gibberosiis, de Man, Abhandl. Senck. nat. Gas., XX\', p. 852, 



pi. xxvi, fig. 57. 



1905. Naiiticaris grandirosfris, Pearson, Cevlon Pearl Oyster Rep., I\', 



p. 79, pi. i. fig. 6. 



1906. Spirontocaris mavmorata, Rathbun, Bull. U.S. Fish. Conim. for 



1903, p. 913. 

 1906. Saron gtbberostis, Nobili, Ann. Sci. nat. Zool. (9), IV, p. 40. 

 1906. Saron gibberosiis, Nobili, Bull. sci. F"rance et Belg., XL, p. 35. 

 igio. Saron gibberosiis, Coutiere, Bull. Soc. philomath. Paris (lo"), II, p. 71, 



text-figs. 



Most of the earlier synonymy of this species is given in full 

 by Borradaile {loc. cit., 1898). It should however be noticed that 

 de Man {loc. cit., 1902) has referred Ortmann's Japanese speci- 

 mens ' and some of those recorded by himself both in 1888 '^ and 

 1897 ^ to a new and very closely allied species, Saron neglectus, 

 which is recorded in the present paper from the Andaman Is 



Among the male specimens of S. marmoratus preserved in the 

 Indian Museum the variation in the proportional lengths of the 

 third maxillipedes and first pair of peraeopods is enormous ; in 

 twenty individuals of this sex from a single locality the third 

 maxillipedes vary from 35 to yy% and the first peraeopods from 

 30 to 88% of the total length. It is this great variation that has 

 led to the confusion that exists in the taxonomy and has induced 

 earlier authors to describe the species under two separate names, 

 marmoratus and gibberosiis Thanks to the work of Borradaile 

 and de Man this confusion no longer exists, but there is still, I 

 believe, a certain amount of misconception regarding the occur- 

 rence of dimorphism in the genus. 



Borradaile, while including gibberosiis as a synonym of mar- 

 moratus, notes that in his specimens " the males can be sharply 

 divided into two groups having the marmoratus and gibberosus- 

 characteristics respectively " and suggests the possibihty that the 

 males of the species are dimorphic. This view is upheld by 

 Coutiere in a most interesting paper entitled " I^es crevettes a 

 males dimorphes du genre Saron" {loc. cit., 1910); but an exam- 

 ination of the material at my disposal leads me to believe that 

 this supposed dimorphism has no foundation in fact. 



The variation shown in the relative lengths of the third 

 maxillipedes and first peraeopods is, as shown in the table on 

 page 85, of enormous extent. In some males these two appendages 



} Zool. Jahrb., Syst., V, p. 497 (1890). 

 ■^ Arch. f. Naturgesch., p. 533. 

 8 Zool. Jahrb., Syst, IX. p. 761. 



