Rev. T. R. R. iStebbina: on Arctic Crustacea 



& 



1846. Par/urus pubescens, Kiwer, Qaimard'a Voy. du Nord, Crust., 



Atlas, pi. ii. fig. 1. 

 1851. Eiqnigurus ptibescens, Braudt, MiddendorfTs Sibirisclie Reise, 



vol. ii. pt. 1, pp. 31, 84, 3-'). 

 1853. Payurus Thompso7n, Bell, British Stalk-eyed Crustacea, p. 372, 



fig. in text. 



1858. JEupaffurns pubescens, Stimpsou, and Eiipaf/urus Kroyeri, Stimp- 

 son (both without description), Pr. Ac. Philad. pp. 75, 87. 



1859. Eupagurus Kroyeri^ Stimpson, Ann. Lye. Nat. Hist. New York, 

 vol. vii. p. 80. 



1870. Eupayurus ptibescens, S. I. Smith, Trans. Connect. Ac. vol. v. 



pt. 1, p. 47. 

 1879. Eupagurus Kroyeri, S. I. Smith, ibid. p. 48. 

 1882. Eupagurus pubescens, Sars, Forh. Selsk. Christian, no. 18, p. 42, 



pi. i. figs. 1-2. 

 1886. Eupagurus ptibescens, Henderson, Crust. Decap. Firth of Clyde, 



p. 26. 

 1888. Eupagurus pubescens, var. Kroyeri, Henderson, Hep. Voy. 



' Challenger,' vol. xxvii. p. 65. 



In first establishing the species Kvoyer assigned to it two 

 distinctive characters, tlie long soft hairs clothing the chelipeds 

 and the form of the left hand, which, liowever, he left un- 

 described. In the same year he gave another characterization 

 as follows : — " Dorsal surface of the cephalothorax and the 

 legs densely beset with yellow seta3, and a strong dentate 

 carina of the right hand extending from the base of the finger 

 to the outer carina of the wrist." This was followed by a 

 comparison or contrast instituted between the new species and 

 Pagurus hernhardus. No mention at all is made of the left 

 hand ; but Brandt is no doubt right in supposing that Kroyer 

 by a slip of the pen wrote " dextra " in place of " sinistree." 



Bell probably instituted his Pagurus Thompsoai in igno- 

 rance or forgetfulness of Kroyer's species, and he speaks of 

 the small anterior leg (that is, the left cheliped) as " nearly 

 linear," without noticing the characteristic carina. Stimpson 

 found specimens which agreed with the figure in Gaimard's 

 ' Voy. dulSord ' in having the pubescence little demonstrative, 

 and botli he and afterwards Professor S. I. Smith concluded 

 that Kroyer had mixed up two distinct species. Professor 

 Smith finds numerous minute distinctions in the outline, 

 position, and denticulation of the outer carina of the left hand 

 in the two forms. But Professor Sars maintains that the 

 two cannot possibly be separated specifically. He urges that 

 the pubescence of body and legs is on tiie whole very variable, 

 and that the form of the left chela varies a good deal in the 

 two sexes — in the female fairly corresponding with Smith's 

 account of Eupagurus Kroyeri and in the male with his 

 Eupagurus pubescens. He finds the male as a rule more 



