60 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VOL. 120 
A female from Black Point (Haunama Bay, Oahu, T.H., 1937, 
L. R. Woodward, S. F. Light) lacks the second anterolateral tooth 
on the right. 
In 1957, Stephenson and Hudson gave an extensive synonymy for 
this species. A further extension to include 7. dispar has been given 
by Stephenson (1961a). 
Since then Forest and Guinot (1961) have revived JT. edwardsi 
Borradaile as a separate species on the basis of three specimens from 
Tahiti which included a single mature male. The bases of separation 
of T. edwardsi from T. admete concern the general facies, and also, 
according to Forest and Guinot, the structure of the male pleopods. 
T. edwardsi is supposed to be distinguishable on general facies by the 
following: Cardiac ridges of carapace absent; posterior mesobranchial 
ridges absent; hands of chelae smoother and with ill-developed carinae; 
and fourth anterolateral tooth either absent or rudimentary. 
Forest and Guinot distinguish the male pleopods of T. edwardsi 
by large subterminal bristles of outer surface of irregular size and 
the row not extending so far (relatively) backward from the tip, 
and by large subterminal bristles of inner surface slightly more 
numerous (relatively) and extending farther backward from the tip. 
As regards general facies, Stephenson and Hudson (1957) on the 
basis of 152 specimens stated (pp. 31-32): 
. . . the only dubious point appears to be the status of Borradaile’s ‘‘var. ed- 
wardsi,’’ which is typified by the carination and granulation of the outer surface 
of the hand of the chelipeds. The existence of gradations between smoothness 
and carination, and the absence of correlated characters which would serve for 
distinction, suggests that this ‘“‘variety”’ should not be retained. 
Since then, field examination of several hundred further specimens 
has confirmed the gradations in cheliped structure and failed to 
reveal features of color, habitat, or behavior, which merited a de- 
tailed reinvestigation of the situation. 
As regards pleopod structure, figures already published cast doubt 
upon the distinguishing criteria of Forest and Guinot. Thus the 
outer surface of the figure of Stephenson and Hudson (1957, fig. 
31) resembles their 7. admete, while the inner surface resembles their 
T. edwardsi. To obtain unequivocal data, 25 males were selected 
at random from the present collection. Since specimens with car- 
inated chelae predominated, five males with smoother chelipeds 
(the first five encountered) were added. The total was examined 
for seven of the supposedly distinguishing features of 7. edwardsi 
from 7. admete, and the results given in table 1 (p. 113) are arranged with 
T. edwardsi-like specimens first and JT. admete-like specimens last. 
In certain features, particularly those of the pleopods, it was difficult 
