[^'5J 



DECAPODA FROM ALBATROSS DRBDGINGS. 



Specimens examined. 



409 



I refer this species to Duvernoy's geuns Aristeus with much hesitation. 

 It appears to have the same brauchial formula as the species of Aristeus 

 described by Bate from the Challenger collections and is apparently 

 congeneric with them, but, as pointed out by Bate, Duvernoy's species 

 is figured and described as having no epipods at the bases of the fourth 

 peraiopods, and on this account Bate " proposes ])rovisionally " the name 

 Plesiopenceus for such as have the epipods at bases of the fourth perae- 

 opods, though he describes his species as Aristeus. According to the 

 description and figures, Duvernoy's species differs also, though not 

 pointed out by Bate, in wanting pleurobranchiai on the twelfth and 

 thirteenth somites, so that the branchial formula of his species, as nearly 

 as can be made out from the description and figures, would be : 



The figure of the mandibular palpus of Duvernoy's species does not 

 show the form of the distal segment characteristic of the species just 

 described nor of Aristeus Edwardsianus, as figured by Miers, and it is 

 described as composed of three articulations — an evident mistake. It 

 does not seem at all improbable that Duvernoy may have overlooked 

 the epipod and the two pleuiobranchi*, and that his species is really 

 congeneric with the species here described. 



Bate's Aristeus armatus, from " the Australasian Archipelago, in the 

 North Pacific and South Atlantic,"' is, perhaps, closely allied to the 

 species here described, or even specifically identical with it, but is not 

 described with enough detail to show its affinities. 



Hepomadi^s tenee, sp. nov 



(Plato IX, Figs. 7, 8.) 



I refer this species, of which only a single imperfect specimen was 

 taken, to Bate's genus Hepomadus with some hesitation. Bate charac- 



