56 
found Ruppell’s species common in the bay of Natal, and at 
low tide on sand banks at the mouth of the Umlaas. In calling 
it M. victor he follows de Haan, whom he praises for uniting 
the known forms of Matuta into one species, divisible into 
six varieties. The same name, Miers says, was adopted by 
Alphonse Milne-Edwards in 1874 for ‘“‘ all the species of earlier 
authors, every intermediate degree being found between 
forms which at first might appear distinct.’’ Miers himself, 
instead of tamely yielding to such a blessed simplification, 
three years later allotted to the genus nine species, five of 
which are brand new. He made victor, peronii, lesueurit, 
and doubtfully Latreille’s doryphora, synonyms of his own 
M. victrix, to which he gave Herbst’s first /unaris as a variety 
crebrepunctata, encouraging it with the hope of rising some 
day to the status of a distinct species. For Leach’s C. lunaris 
he accepted the name Matuta picta, Hess, with M. planifes, 
Desmarest (not Fabricius), as an additional synonym. As 
already mentioned he retained Herbst’s second Junaris as an 
independent species under that name, and to this he attached 
no synonyms. In 1886, however, under the influence of 
Hilgendorf and de Man, his views of the genus exhibit a con- 
siderable change. He had in the meantime withdrawn his 
identification of Herbst’s second Junaris in favour of another 
new species, M. laevidactyla, and established a species M. 
tnermts, which is really very distinct in appearance from all 
those previously known. Unfortunately, in his latest recension 
he does not definitely say whether his M. lunaris (Herbst) 
refers to Herbst’s earlier or later account, or to both those 
accounts. But he identifies it with “ Matuta planipes, Fabri- 
cius (fide Hilgendorf),” a species which was published after 
Herbst’s first, but before his second Junaris. From his M. 
victrix, var. crebrepunctata, Miers withdraws the reference 
which he had earlier made to the description and figure given 
by Herbst in 1783 (not ,1790,,as stated by Miers). 
{ From the interminable discussion of minute differences, 
as to the importance of which distinguished authors neither 
agree one with another nor always with themselves, it seems 
safe to conclude that most of the specific names which have 
been coined for this genus may be dispensed with. In that 
case the name Junaris given by Forskal has evident priority. 
In any case the opinion of Riippell that the species which he 
took in the Red Sea is identical with that which Forskal took 
in the same sea appears well grounded, and that Krauss was 
justified in identifying his crabs from Natal with Riippell’s 
species, need not be doubted. 
