BRACHYURA. 395 



Lophactaea anaglypta (HELLER), 1861 A.3, p. 102. 

 Locality : Gulf of Manaar, two specimens (both males). C.I. = IG'O. 

 (See EATHBUN, ' Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.,' xi., p. 159, for Platypodia as generic name.) 



Zozymus gemmula, DANA, var. ceylonica, nov. Plate I., fig. 7. 



Locality : Trincomalee, three specimens (a, b, c). 



Description : Two males, one of which appears to be adult, and one female, which, 

 though non-ovigerous, has a broad abdomen loosely applied to the sternum and may 

 well be adult. Except in regard to the walking legs, the specimens show a very close 

 similarity in most respects to those described and figured by DE MAN under Zozymus 

 gemmula, QANA (DE MAN, ' Abh. Senck. Ges.,' xxv., p. 588). However, the walking legs 

 show considerable differences. The following is a description of these appendages in 

 my specimens : The four pairs of the same individual are very similar. Dorsal 

 border of the nieropodite faintly denticulated. Carpopodite and propodite have well- 

 developed dorsal crests ; that of the carpopodite is deeply fissured about the middle 

 of its extent (a little more distal than the middle). The carpopodite has a 

 longitudinal groove on its posterior surface ; a transverse groove crosses this, con- 

 tinuing the line of the incision of the crest, and marking off a more or less triangular 

 distal area of the segment. The joint between carpopodite and propodite is markedly 

 oblique. The lower border of the propodite curves upward obliquely, approaching 

 the upper border, so that the segment is more or less triangular in shape. The upper 

 part of the flattened posterior surface of the propodite presents a triangular excavation 

 filled with hair. The dactylopodite is narrow and slightly curved, terminating in a 

 dark brown spinule. 



The points in which the walking legs differ from DE MAN'S description and figure 

 of those of Z. gemmula concern : (a) the similarity of the members of the four pairs 

 in DE MAN'S specimens they show considerable differences ; (b) the upper border of 

 the meropodites ; (c) the free edges of the dorsal crests of carpopodite and propodite 

 form a continuous even line ; (cT) the position of the fissure of the upper crest of the 

 carpopodite ; (e] the transverse grooves of the posterior face of the carpopodite ; 

 (/) the dorsal border of the propodite (for detail compare with DE MAN'S 'figure). 



Further differences from DE MAN'S specimens are : (1) The most posterior tubercle 

 on the dorsal border of the hand is more prominent, it attracts notice with its 

 flattened surface and its backwardly and inwardly projecting sharpened edge ; (2) the 

 anterior border of the front is a little more horizontal (see figures) DE MAN found 

 that the front was more prominent in the male than in the female, this does not hold 

 for my specimens ; (3) the ratio of fronto-orbital breadth divided by carapace length 

 is greater in both sexes ; (4) the granules of the outer surface of the fixed finger are 

 more definitely arranged in two longitudinal rows ; (5) they are smaller : it is possible, 

 however, that they are not fully grown. 



The value of distinctions (2), (3), and (4) appears to me very doubtful. I only 



3 E 2 



