144 Addis on E. Verrill, 



The rostrum of the female is broad and thin, not acute ; it has 

 about 10 to 12 teeth above and 6 or 7 below, often obscured by 

 hairs. The carapace has no hepatic spines. Mandibular palpua 

 slender, 2- jointed, the second joint longer. 



Chelae of the first pair of legs have fingers distinctly longer than 

 the palm ; those of the second legs about equal to the palm. It 

 is nearly transparent when living. Length 30 to 45 mm. The 

 rostrum of the male is longer and more acute. 



It is very common among Gulf -weed (Sargassum) and is very 

 widely distributed in the tropical Atlantic Ocean. Bermuda (coll. 

 Goode, 1876). Many specimens were taken at Bermuda by my 

 parties, both in 1898 and 1901. Harbor of Beaufort, N. C. (Hay 

 and Shore). 



Palaemon Fabr. (restricted). Long-clawed Shrimps; River Crawfishes. 

 Palemon (pars) M.-Edw., op. cit., p. 387, 1837. 

 Palamon (pars) Fabricius, op. cit. ; M. Edw. ; Dana, etc. 



Palamon E. Desmarest, op. cit., 1850, restriction. Stimpson, op. cit, 

 1860. 



Bithynis Phillippi, Weig. Arch. Naturg., vol. xxvi, p. 161, 1860.* Faxon/ 

 1895, etc. 



Macrobrachium Bate, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p. 363, 1868. 



This genus, as restricted by Desmarest and Stimpson, differs 

 from Leander in having hepatic spines, but no branchiostegial 

 spines, and in having the second pair of legs very large and much 

 elongated, usually becoming longer than the body, in the adult ; 

 their elongation is due mainly to the unusual length of the carpus 

 and propodus, which are nearly terete. The carpus is sometimes 

 short. Antennules have three flagella. 



* Stimpson, in the same year (1860), made the same divisions as did 

 Phillippi, adopting Palcemon (restricted) as the name of this group, and 

 Leander Desm. for the other division, including such species as L. tenui- 

 cornis and allies, which have no hepatic spine. In doing this he followed 

 E. Desmarest, who had proposed these names for the same two divisions 

 made by him, though on other characters. He evidently intended to 

 differentiate these two genera, which were later better established by 

 Stimpson. Many subsequent writers follow Desmarest and Stimpson in 

 the use of the generic names; others follow Phillippi. Strict rules of 

 priority should compel us to use the names proposed by Desmarest unless 

 some better reason can be discovered than has yet been given for doing 

 otherwise. 



