214 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM VoL. 97 
Remarks.—This species is characterized by the short, widely. sepa- 
rated lateral processes and the heavy appearance of the spines and 
claws of the propodus. In some specimens the setae on the legs are 
very fine. The segmentation of the chelifore is difficult to see in many 
specimens. The lateral chitinous line of the legs and trunk extends 
out on the scape of the chelifore. 
The foregoing description is quoted, with necessary alterations, 
from a manuscript by the late Dr. Louis Giltay. I am glad to concur 
with him in dedicating the species to Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, of the 
United States National Museum. Unfortunately circumstances made 
it impossible to preserve Giltay’s authorship. 
Distribution.—A Caribbean species, from Tortugas, Fla., to the 
Gulf ef Darién; from relatively shallow water, 8-10 to 155 fathoms. 
Genus PIGROGROMITUS Calman, 1927 
PIGROGROMITUS TIMSANUS Caiman 
FicureE 23, a-d 
Pigrogromitus timsanus CALMAN, 1927, pp. 408-410, fig. 104, a. 
Record of collection.—Lake Worth, Fla., August 28, 1943, WHOI fouling collec- 
tion, station G 22, 3 feet, 9 specimens, including ovigerous male. 
With the exception of a somewhat stronger terminal claw of the 
oviger, these Florida specimens are inseparable from those found by 
Calman in the Suez Canal. It is probable that the difference in the 
oviger is due more to the angle at which the structure became fixed 
under the cover glass than to actual differences, since the rest of the 
armature of the oviger is so similar. The Florida specimens are about 
the same size as the types, and the proboscis has the same partial 
constriction in the middle (not well shown in Calman’s dorsal view, 
fig. 104a). The egg mass is single, as in Pycnogonum. 
The occurrence of this species in the Suez Canal and the Florida 
coast region is an interesting distribution puzzle, although not a sur- 
prising one, in view of the distribution of various other species on 
both sides of the Atlantic. The transitional peculiarities of this form 
have already been commented upon (Hedgpeth, 1947, p. 7). In con- 
sulting the passage of Twelfth Night from which the name of this genus 
was borrowed, I find the following: “In sooth, thou wast in very 
gracious fooling last night, when thou spokest of Pigrogromitus, of 
the Vapians passing the equinoctial of Queubus . . .” (Act. II, se. iu). 
In sooth, we taxonomists are hard put to it to find names, but there 
have been far worse sources than the nonsense of Wiil Shakespeare. 
It seems that Barnard (1946, p. 63) is of the same opinion, for he has 
suggested Queubus as a generic name for a form somewhat resembling 
Pigrogromitus, although it differs from it in lacking both chelifores 
and palpi. Inasmuch as this new form is so far known only from a 
