314: On the Iloloti/pe oj Ammotliea carollnensis. 



Ammothea, it is clear that, as Bouvier himself lias suggested, 

 Leach's species finds its place near A. grmidis, Pt'effer, and 

 A. gibhosa (Mobius). The difference between these two 

 species is not very great, and Bouvier even suggests that tiiey 

 might be united, but, taking the characters as he gives them, 

 the comparatively short and horizontal abdomen, the incon- 

 spicuous tuberosities on the lateral processes, and, above all, 

 the more numerous and closely-set spinules, not arranged in 

 bands, on the legs, are points in which the present specimen 

 agrees rather with A. gmndis. A closer comparison is 

 hindered by the fact that, while the characters of both 

 species are known to change very considerably with growth, 

 no detailed description of immature specimens of A. graudis 

 has been published. There are, in the Museum collection, 

 three specimens that I believe to belong to the last-named 

 species. One of these is immature, with chelate chelo|jhores, 

 but it. is much smaller than Leach's holotype and it is in 

 such bad condition as to be of little use for comparison. 

 Assuming, however, that such characters as the relative 

 sliortness and stoutness of the legs and greater length of the 

 propodus are due to immaturity, while the shortness of the 

 trunk is caused by shrinkage in drying, I am unable to point 

 to a ■single definite character by which Leach's specimen 

 can be differentiated from Pfeffer's species. Until it is 

 ))ossible to compare the type-specimens of the two species side 

 by side (which is unlikely to be for some time), I propose 

 that the species should be united, with the following 

 synonymy : — 



Ammothea carolinensis, Leach. 



Ammothea carolinensis, Leach, Zool. Miscellany, i. p. 34, pi. xiii. (1814). 

 Nymphum caroline7isis, U. Milne-Edwards, Hist. JN'at. Crust, iii. p. 534 



(1840). 

 Animothea qranclis, Pfeffer, Jabrb. Hamburg. Wiss. Anst. vi. (2) 



p. 43 (1889). 

 Colussendeis (?) charcoli, Bouvier, Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, xi. 



p. 296 (1905). 

 Leionympkon grande, Hodgson, Nat. Antarct. Exped. ' Discovery,' 



Zool. iii. p. 41, pi. vi. fig. 1 (1907) ; Bouvier, Exped. Antarctique 



Franfaise 1903-1905, P} cuogonides du ' Francais/ p. 60, tigs. 40-48 



(1907). 

 Ammothea qrandis, Bouvier, Deuxieme Exp^d. Antarctique Fran9aise 



J908-1910, Pycnogouides du ' Pourquoi Pas ?,' p. 126 (1913). 



