﻿PYCNOGOXIIM. 



The trunk rather chuiisy, sniootli. 



The neck \ery sh(irt. 



The proboscis ver\- short and thick, scarce!}- constricted in the middle. 



The ocuHferous tubercle rather high, erect, almost conical, a Httk- tapcrin(r to the top; the ocelli very 



small, round. 

 The caudal segment somewhat thick, not \-er\- long, ol)liquely erect. 

 The chelifori somewhat short, rather clumsy, the transverse partition of the .scape .scarcely visible; the 



fingers ver>' short, scarcely gaping. 

 The palps especialh- short, unjoiuted, truncated. 

 The o\-igerous legs short, witliout claws. 

 The ambulatory legs somewhat short and thick, the gland duct on the fourtli tarsal joint of the male 



short. The claw rather short and clumsy, with rather clumsy auxiliarv claws of a little more 



than half the length of the claw. 

 Total length j,:'""". The proboscis 1,7""". The trunk 4,3^""'. The caudal segment 2'""\ 



One single male taken in the port of Rio de Janeiro, and brought Iiome bv K rover; it is 

 still found in the museum. 



Kro>er, I.e. pp. 104 and 124, established this species as a Plinxichilidiitui, and gave also draw- 

 ings of the animal, as well as some particulars; but Kroyer was no skilful drawer, and in this in- 

 stance he was especially unfortunate; and as, moreover, Kroyer, contrary to his common accurac\-, 

 has made some essential errors by failing to see, it will be imderstood, that uncertainty might ea.sily 

 arise as to the interpreting of this species of his. It will therefore be of some interest to get a 

 new description of the species, and it is only to be regretted that tlie original specimen has been 

 treated so badly by being used for rei^resentation. That notwitlistandiug the errors and representation 

 of Kro}-er the divinations hitherto seem to have been correct, will not be of an}- importance .so as 

 to pre\-ent a future author in putting up (and, as it would seem, in riglitl}- doing so) the .species of 

 Kro}-er as a t}-pe of a new genus. 



Kro}-er, as we have seen, referred the species to the Plioxicliilidiniu of ]\Iil ne-Ed wards, of 

 which genus he. I.e. p. 121, ga\-e a copious description in Latin, which description was to comprise 

 all the species of the genus known to him. In this description the clielifori are mentioned in the 

 following manner: ^hindibuke . . . . ma.xinue sunt (dimidiam auimalis longitudinem fere ;equantes|, ex 

 articulo composit;e l:>asali, chelaque bre\-iore — accordingh- onl\- one joint in the scape. Of the 

 palps it is said: Alaxillte prioris paris desunt — accordingI\- the ]ialps are wanting. I-'rom the 

 specific description nui}- be jxiinted out that the ovigerous legs, 1. c. p. 124, are said to be tenjointed, 

 from which the inference ma}- be drawn that the aninud has been full-grown, and furtlier it ma}- be 

 noticed that the bristles on the ambulatory legs are not mentioned, from which fact we ma\- secure!}' 

 conclude that the specimen of Kroyer lias had no specially conspicuous bristles, or, at all ex'ents, 

 that Kro}-er has not observed this peculiarit\- wliicli was otlierwise well l-cnown to liim , and wliicli 

 he lias often mentioned and described in the sea-.\rthropoda examined b}- him. (I have in vain searched 

 for such feather}- bristles, comj). liohni I.e. j). 1S2, I'll, fig. .^ f ). iMuall}- Kro}-er has not men- 



