296 CRUSTACEA. 
Like as Petrol. mossambicus, also Petrol. indicus is ap- 
parently at first sight distinguished from all the other nu- 
merous species of this genus by the sculpture of the 
cephalothorax and of the ambulatory legs, as 
also by the form of the carpopodite of the che 
lipedes; it differs from the species of the shores of Mo- 
gambique especially by the different form of the front 
and by some other characters. 
15. Petrolisthes barbatus Heller. 
Plate 7, fig. 4. 
Porcellana barbata, Heller, Crustaceen der Novara-Reise, 
p. 80, Taf. VI, fig. 8. (1865), 
? Porcellana coccinea Owen, Crustacea of the voyage of 
the Blossom, p. 87, Pl. XXVI, figs. 1, 2. — Dana, Unit. 
States Explor. Exped. Crustacea, p. 423. 
Eight fine specimens of different size from Endeh, Flores, 
As Heller’s description of this species is rather incomplete, 
I sent an adult specimen to Mr. Koelbel, of Vienna, in 
order to attain accuracy in naming it. Mr. Koelbel kindly 
compared our specimen with the single type specimen of 
Porc. barbata Heller from the Nicobar Islands in the »K. K. 
naturhistor. Hofmuseum” and informed me that he was 
fully convinced that the two species are identical. ') 
Petrol. barbatus Heller belongs to the small number of spe- 
cies which are armed besides with an epibranchial 
tooth, also with a supra-ocular one, This supra-ocu- 
1) On this manner, no doubt, a perfect accuracy is attained in the naming 
of species, when the original description is insufficient. But then it is a pity 
when the results of these comparisons are not read or neglected by following 
authors, because the synonymy then again becomes confased. So for instance 
Dr. Ortmann (die Decapodenkrebse des Strassburger Museums, IV Theil, p. 
262 etc.) has apparently not read my description of Petrol. dentatus M. E. 
(Journal Linnean Soc. of London, Vol. XXII, 1888, p. 216), where I have 
proved, after having sent one of the specimens to Paris, that Petr. dentatus 
M. B. is really armed with an epibranchial tooth, though Milne Edwards 
makes no mention of this tooth in the „Histoire naturelle des Crustacés’’. 
Notes from the Leyden Museum, Vol. XV. 
