324 Records of the Indian Museum. [Vol. XVI , 



the merus of the outer maxilliped is proportionately much longer, 

 being three times the length of the ischium. The brush of hair 

 between the bases of the first two walking legs is not mentioned 

 either by Roux or by Miss Rathbun. 



Scopimera kochi, Roux. 



191 7. Scopimera koclii, Roux, in Nova Guinea: Resultats Exped. Sri. 

 Neerl. Noitvelle-Guinea V, Zool., p. 610, pi. xxvii, figs. 21-24. 



Merauke, New Guinea. 



Scopimera sigillorum (Rathbun). 



1914. Dotilla sigilloriun. Rathbun, Pruc. U.S. Nat. Mns. XLVII, p. 83. 



Sandakan Bas^, Borneo. 



I have not seen examples of either of these species. As 

 noted above they ippear to be related to S. infiata. 



Genus Dotilla, Stimpson. 



1835. Doto, de Haan, in Siebold's Faun, jfapoii.. Crust., p. 24. 



1852. Doto, Milne-Edwards, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool., (3) XVIII, p. 152 



()wm. praeocc). 

 1858. Dotilla, Stimpson, Proc, Acad. Sci, Philadelphia, p. 98. 

 1900. Dotilla, Alcock, 'Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal LXIX, p. 363 (in 



part), 

 1918. Dotilla, Tesch, Decap. Brachyur. 'Siboga' Exped. I, pp. 41, 43 



(/;; part). 



From this genus I have separated two species, 'Z). brevitarsis, 

 de Man and D. profugi, Nobili, and have placed them in a new 

 genus to which I have given the name Dotillopsis. The remain- 

 ing species — in my opinion only eight in number — form a very 

 homogeneous group, distinguishable at a glance from any other 

 genus of crabs by the curious formation of the abdomen. The 

 fourth segment overla{.s the fifth and is furnished at its distal end 

 with a conspicuous brush of hair. 



Many authors have remarked that they have seen no female 

 Dotilla^ but it does not appear that females are really scarce. 

 The sexes, however, resemble each other so closely in the form of 

 the abdomen that it is next to impossible to distinguish them 

 without examination of the pleopods. 



The genus shows afiinity with Scopimera in the form of the 

 distal segments of the second maxilliped, but lacks the accessor}'- 

 branchial passage found in that genus. In the deep convolute 

 sculpture of the side- walls of the carapace it resembles Dotillopsis 

 and, less markedly perhaps, the species of the infiata-groM-^ of 

 Scopimera. 



As regards the species^ I have already referred Miss Rathbun's 

 D. sigillorum to the genus Scopimera and, as noted above, two 

 other species are placed in Dotillopsis. I agree with Nobili and 

 Laurie that Alcock's D. affinis is synonymous with D. sulcata, 



