618 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL. 113 
side, reef flat, 0-1 foot at low tide; collected with “Endrin” insecticide; 
September 13, 1958; Limbaugh, Chess, and Hambly; 1 female. 
MEASUREMENTS: Carapace length of male to base of rostrum, 8.9 
mm.; of females without eggs, 5.1-9.0 mm.; of ovigerous females, 9.5- 
12.5 mm. Total length of largest specimen, about 55 mm. 
ReMaRKs: Fully formed larvae are visible in the eggs carried by the 
largest specimen, which was taken on August 19, 1958. 
The two females without eggs agree very well with De Man’s 
description and figures except that there are two teeth, one above the 
other, on the inner, proximal part of the dorsal surface of the outer 
uropods, as noted by Edmondson in C. oahuensis. De Man mentions 
only one tooth in this position, but the lower one is concealed and easily 
overlookedinsmall specimens, and De Man’s figure suggests two teeth. 
In the smallest female in the present collection—which is a little 
smaller than De Man’s largest, figured specimen, also a female—and 
in the male—which is the next to the smallest specimen in the Clipper- 
ton series—the rostrum slopes downward slightly as in the Siboga 
specimens; in the next larger specimen—a female with a carapace 
length of 9.0 mm.—the rostrum is horizontal with a bulge near the 
base; in the three ovigerous females, it is directed slightly upward, 
approaching the condition in C. oahuensis. In the two smallest 
females, the inner margin of the outer uropod is sinuous basally, 
faintly convex distally, and it curves gradually into the true distal 
margin without any indication of an angle, much as in De Man’s 
figure; in the male and the ovigerous female with a carapace length 
of 10.8 mm., the inner margin of that segment is markedly concave, 
as in Edmondson’s figure, but there is no angle at the juncture with 
the distal margin; in the smallest and largest ovigerous females, the 
inner margin is also concave, but there is a broadly obtuse angle at 
the juncture with the distal margin. The forms of the rostrum and of 
the uropods, the characters by which Edmondson separated C. oahuensis 
from C. placida, apparently vary considerably, possibly with growth; 
if so C. oahuensis is a synonym of De Man’s species. 
C. hartmeyeri is relegated to synonymy with less assurance because 
both Balss and Hult failed to mention or figure the inner, distal 
prolongation of the eyestalk beyond the cornea. ‘This lobe is very 
apparent in most of the Clipperton specimens, but it is much reduced 
in the male. Inasmuch as C. hartmeyeri seems to agree with C. 
placida in all other particulars, it may be reasonable to assume that the 
eyestalk lobes were overlooked in the specimens from the Galapagos 
Islands and Jamaica. 
There is no doubt that C. grandimana is a distinct species. As 
Schmitt pointed out, the “second segment”’ of the major cheliped 
described by Gibbes was certainly the ischium, as indicated by his 
