194 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM Von. 97 
ALBATROSS RECORDS 
eueee Date Lat.N. | Long. W. | Depth | Number of 
specimens 
ory ant or a” Fathoms 
206s sBODLEMDEE 15) 188os8 = a oe ee ee 42 15 25 65 48 40 122 1 
2069 |_-__- (01 eee Re Se ee See nea SARS oe 41 54 50 65 48 35 101 2 
D200 eee a2 (6s Read a Ss ote oak es sett EP eed a 41 56 20 65 48 40 113 2 
PTD AP NOVEMIDER LT aSiaee wre ead Ld eee 35 49 30 74 34 45 843 af 
SPAT Gr en OOS sa ae ee ees Be os Sern a Se 35 45 23 74 31 25 888 ? 
2470s RING. cost copie = se eee 2 ee ee eae 42 55 30 50 51 00 471 1 
DAT tuRLLy tA Sip ote me: Et eee. ae a eee ee ee 44 34 00 56 41 45 218 L 
1 This is probably the record given by Stephensen (1933, p. 18): ‘‘Collected by the Albatross at 41°50’ N., 
65°68’40” W., abt. 220 m.’’ There is no Albatross station for such a position. 
2 Teste Hilton; verified by correspondence. 
ADDITIONAL RECORDS 
Fish Hawk station 7283, lat. 24°17'30’’ N., long. 81°53’30’’ W., 127 fathoms 
Feb. 19, 1902, 1 female. 
State University of Iowa Bahamas Expedition, between Bahamas and Cuba, 
1 male (ov.). 
M. C. Z., lat. 42°16’ N., long. 66°34’ W., 160 fathoms, July 25, 1931, W. C. 
Schroeder coll., 2 females. 
This species is somewhat variable in the shape of the neck and 
separation of the lateral processes. The usual type, as described by 
Wilson, is illustrated in figure 15, a—i. An extreme variety will be 
found in figure 13, d. The type figured by Sars is midway between 
these extremes. ‘The long chelae with their closely set spinules and 
the very long auxiliary claws are characteristic of both forms. The 
two specimens from the Florida region (fig. 15, h-k) are too close to 
Nymphon macrum to be considered a separate species in spite of the 
considerable southern extension in range. The previous record is 
that by Stephensen (1935), who identified the species from latitude 
41°32’ N., longitude 9°5’ W., off Portugal. The principal difference 
in the Florida type is the heavier tarsal joints and shorter terminal 
claws. 
While this Florida form might be considered a distinct variety of 
Nymphon macrum by some taxonomists, subspecific categories do 
not seem advisable in a genus whose species are as subject to indi- 
vidual variation as those of this genus. The bewildering array of 
subspecies, varieties, and forms proposed by certain recent workers 
may be of some use in emphasizing the degree of variation in their 
respective species, but their limits are too vaguely defined for taxonom- 
ic procedure. It is hard enough to decide what constitutes a species 
in this genus without adding varieties to the confusion. 
Distribution—A Boreal species, from Massachusetts Bay to the 
Barents Sea, but sporadically in more southern waters. Ohshima’s 
