Mr. W. V. Guise on a new species of Alpheus. 53 
Hailstone, which certainly agrees far more nearly with my ex- 
ample than do either of those to which I have already referred ; 
so nearly indeed, that but little doubt remains upon my mind of 
its being identically the same. This species, which Mr. Hail- 
stone calls “ Hippolyte rubra,” and of which a figure is annexed, 
is thus described :— 
“Superior antennz with two sete, the upper ones fringed 
with hair and excavated below. Inferior antenne nearly the 
length of the body. Pedipalps with three exserted joints, the 
last bluntly pointed, and twice the length of the preceding one, 
with two rows of fasciculi of hairs. First pair of legs didactyle, 
very large, with the hands much compressed, unequal, the right 
being the larger, bristly ; the thigh excavated beneath, and its 
inner margin spinulose; second pair didactyle, very long, 
slender ; wrists many-jointed ; other legs terminated by a single 
claw and spinulose within; the last pair the most slender. 
Thorax with three short spines anteriorly. Tail with five plates, 
the middle one blunt at its apex, with four spines arranged in 
two lines. Colour deep scarlet, except above the eyes, which are 
concealed under the shell, and above them it is transparent and 
colourless. The tail is fringed with white hairs, and the legs are 
mottled with yellow.” 
Upon this, at page 274 (same volume), is a note by Mr. West- 
wood, in which, with much skill and critical acumen, he traces 
Mr. Hailstone’s individual to the group of Alpheade, and refers 
it to Cryptophthalmus ruber of Rafinesque, which M. Edwards 
identifies with his “ Alpheus ruber.” Mr. Westwood afterwards, 
at page 552, proposed to elevate it into the type of a new genus 
by the name of ‘ Dienecia.’ 
Mr. Hailstone’s description, as quoted above, might almost 
stand word for word as applicable to my example, with which it 
seems to tally in all important particulars, excepting as regards 
size, which, in the case of Mr. Hailstone’s Crustacean, is barely 
two-thirds that of mine. The figures too attached to Mr. Hail- 
stone’s notice would serve equally well to illustrate mine, with 
the exception of the hairy fringe attached to the setaceous extre- 
mities of the superior antennz. 
If I am right in my supposition of the identity of my Channel 
Island Crustacean with the three individuals described by Mr. 
Hailstone as brought up by the trawl-net off Hastings in 1835, 
it is evident that the half-digested relics procured by Mr. Cocks 
at Falmouth are not the first examples of an Alpheus having 
been recorded as an inhabitant of the British seas. Indeed it is 
impossible to read Mr. Hailstone’s careful and minute description 
without feeling convinced that a true Alphean was before him 
when he made his drawing and description ; and I may be par- 
