1913. | S. Kemp: Crustacea Stomatopoda of the Indo-Pacific Region. 155 
such forms—even though some seem never to. reach maturity—will in the ordinary 
course of natural selection result in races specially adapted to particular environmental 
factors is far from improbable, and that it may already have occurred is still an open 
question. Results of great importance may be expected from direct observations on 
living animals and from a comparative examination of large collections from distant but 
strictly localized areas. 
The scheme of classification adopted for these species differs, though not very 
widely, from that given by most. previous writers, but is diametrically opposed to 
that suggested by Lanchester. The latter author was, I believe, misled by the small 
size of the specimens which formed the vast majority of his material and many forms 
that in the opinion of all previous authors were entitled to specific distinction he re- 
garded as varieties of a single species. In this there is perhaps no great cause of com- 
plaint, for the classification of some of the forms must long remain a matter of in- 
dividual opinion. But in JI,anchester’s scheme, which comprises a_ single species, 
fourteen named varieties and a large number of lettered and numbered subheads, the 
main features of the case are to a very great extent lost sight of, and certain forms 
which by reason of their structure, geographical distribution or abundance, stand out far 
ahead of all others are, in his account, placed on the same footing as other forms to 
which not nearly the same significance can be attributed. It is here that I must dissent 
most strongly from this author’s views. 
But, in any endeavour to arrive at a true understanding of these matters, the data sup- 
plied by Lanchester and the excellent figures which he has given will always prove of great 
value and though, in a recent revision of the genus, his work is wholly ignored, such a 
course can hardly tend to a satisfactory solution of the problems that are involved. 
1. Gonodactylus chiragra (Fabricius). 
Plate ix, fig. 107. 
1781. Squilla chiragra, Fabricius, Species Insectorum, I, p. 515. 
1787. Squilla chiragra, Fabricius, Mantiss. Insect., I, p. 334. 
1790. Cancer chiragricus, Linnaeus, Syst. Nat., ed. XIII, I, p. 2990. 
1793. Squilla chiragra, Fabricius, Ent. Syst. I, p. 513. 
1796. Cancer (mantis) chiragra, Herbst, Krabben u. Krebse, II, p. 100, pl. xxxiv, fig. 2. 
1798. Squilla chiragra, Fabricius, Ent. Syst., Suppl., p. 417. 
1823. Squilla chivagra, Desmarest, Dict. des Sci. Nat., XXVIII, p. 342. 
1825. Squilla chivagra, Desmarest, Consid. Crust., p. 251, pl. xliii. 
1825. Gonodactylus chiragra, Latreille, Encycl. Méthod., X, p. 473, Atlas, pl. ccexxv, fig. 2. 
1829. Gonodactylus chiragra, Latreille, in Cuvier’s Régne Anim., 2nd ed., IV, p. 109. 
1832. Gonodactylus chiragra, Owen, Proc. Zool. Soc., p. 6. 
1837. Gonodactylus chiragra, H. Milne-EKdwards, Hist. Nat. Crust., II, p. 528. 
1843. Gonodactvlus chiragra, Krauss, Siid-afric. Crust., p. 60. 
1847. Gonodactylus chiragra, White, List. Crust. Brit. Mus., p. 84. 
1852. Gonodactylus chiragra, Dana, U.S. Explor. Exped., Crust., p. 623, pl. xli, figs. 6a, b. 
1861. Gonodactylus chiragra, Heller, Verhandl. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, XI, p. 29. 
1862. Gonodactylus chiragra, A. Milne-Edwards, in Maillard’s l’ile Réunion, Ann. Baek: 
1865. Gonodactylus chiragra, Heller, Reise ‘ Novara’ Exped., Crust., p. 126. 
1866. Gonodactylus chiragra, Annesley. Proc. Zool. Soc., p. 338 (habits). 
