54 ZOOLOGY. 
DECAPODA MACROURA. 
PALZMONIDA ALPHEINA, 
Genus RHYNCHOCINETES, Edw. 
Gun. cHar. Body moderately compressed ; carapax exhibiting a spinous processus towards 
the middle of the region of the stomach. Fronto-interocular margin provided with three 
spines ; two more spines may be observed laterally upon the same anterior margin. Rostrum 
very large, sword-shaped (ensiform) attached to the front by a gynglymic articulation in a ver- 
tical plane, allowing a free motion downwards between the antenn, and upwards to a vertical 
position of its axis. Its length equals, or exceeds a little, that of the carapax. It is toothed, 
or else denticulated upon its edges. Eyes conspicuous, and, when brought forward, find a rest- 
ing place in an excavation of the peduncle of the superior antenne, the basal article of which 
is large, and armed exteriorly with a spiniform blade. The terminal threads of these append- 
ages are two in number, and constructed as in Hippolytus. External jaw-legs pediform and 
elongated ; their terminal article is slender, cylindrical, and spiny upon its apex. A rudimen- 
tary palpiform appendage may be seen exteriorly at the base of each leg. Tarsus of second 
pair of legs not multiarticulated. First pair of legs larger than the others, and stretching be- 
yond the peduncle of external antenne ; pincers short and spoon-shaped ; finger moveable and 
toothed. Second pair of legs very slender, terminated by a small chela, and shorter than the 
third; the tarsus of the latter and the following pairs being short and toothed as in Hippoly- 
tus. Abdomen not different from the latter-mentioned genus. Several pairs of small spines 
upon the median blade between the caudal paddles. Gills, nine on either side of the thorax, 
disposed upon a double row. 
Syn. Rhynchochinetes, Epw. Ann. Sc. Nat. Deux Sér. Zool. VII, 1837, 165.—Hist. Nat. 
Crust. II, 1837, 383. 
Epw. et Luc. in D’Orb. Voy. Amér. Mérid. VI, I, Crust. 1843, 35. 
Nic. in Gay, Hist. de Chile, Zool. IIT, 1849, 215. 
Oxs. There is one point in the history of this genus which cannot be looked upon with indif- 
ference by naturalists—the fact that the only species on record, when first described, was given 
for fatherland the Indian ocean. Specimens thus labelled had been deposited in the museum 
of the Garden of Plants in Paris, and these became the originals from which Milne Edwards’s 
first description was drawn. As such it was produced in the Histoire naturelle des Crustacés. 
Subsequently, Alcide d’Orbigny brought to the same establishment specimens collected at 
Valparaiso, which, on being submitted to Milne Edwards, were pronounced identical with those 
previously described, and Valparaiso given as locality for the species, without any further 
remark upon the subject. Nicolet, in Claude Gay’s Historia de Chile, follows Milne Edwards’s 
determination; adding, however, that the sole species hitherto known of this genus was indige- 
nous both to the Indian ocean and to Chile. Dana, in his Report on the Crustacea of the United 
States Exploring Expedition, adopts the views of his predecessors in regard to the identity of 
the species, ascribing to it, in his tables of geographic distribution, a still wider range, since 
it is stated to occur in the northern zone of the western coast of the Pacific ocean. 
The question now occurs as to whether the specimens labelled ‘‘Indian ocean,’’ in the Paris 
Museum, do really belong to that district, or else got a wrong label; no mention being made 
by any one as to the channel through which they have been obtained. The figure published 
? 
