ON CRUSTACEA BROUGHT BY DR WILLEY FROM THE SOUTH SEAS. 615 



Dana (the type), forresti Stebbing, and lifuensis n. sp. For brasiliensis (Dana) and 

 Jilum (Stimpson) the inner branch is not described, and the same may be said of 

 Corsica Dollfus and inermis Dollfus, species instituted in 1898, but for eacii of these 

 a one-jointed inner branch is to be understood. For inermis it is tiwured beside the 

 four-jointed inner branch. In Corsica the inner branch is six-jointed, and as M. Dollfus 

 was half inclined to unite his Corsica either with neapolitana of Sars or with savignyi 

 (Kroyer) + algicola Harger, in all of which the outer branch has but a single joint, it 

 may be inferred that the same character belongs to Corsica. 



While i-etaining the opinion that Dolichochelia is identical with Dana's genu.s, 

 I no longer think that Dolichochelia forresti should be united with Leptochelia minuta, 

 the hand and finger of the chelipeds being very distinct in the two species, which 

 are also separated in habitat by an immense interval. 



Leptochelia minuta, Dana. 



1853. Leptochelia minuta, Dana, U. S. Expl. Exp., vol. 13, pt. 2, p. 800, pi. 53, 

 fisr. o a — d. 



1896. Leptochelia minuta (part), Stebbing, Ann. Nat. Hist., ser. 6, vol. 17, p. 158, 



From Leptochelia forresti, Stebbing, which in 1896 I thought must be made a 

 synonym of Dana's species, I now think that L. minuta, is distinct. Upon comparison 

 of actual specimens some satisfactory marks of difference become available. The 

 examples in Dr Willey's collection do not agree with Dana's figures either in the 

 demarcation of the head from the first peraeon segment or in having a short joint 

 at the base of the first antennae. That was fully to be expected. In other respects 

 they agree well with Dana's representation, but are distinguished from L. forresti by 

 the following details. The front of the head is flatly rounded rather than obtuse- 

 angled, if one may trust mounted specimens for the observation of so minute a detail. 

 In the first antennae the difference is striking, the second joint in the West Indian 

 species being four-fifths the length of the first, whereas in L. minuta. it is only 

 half as long. The third joint, however, which Dana figures as about two-thii-ds the 

 length of the second, is barely one-fourth of that length or less in the specimens which 

 I have examined of both species. In the enormously elongate chelipeds L. minuta 

 has the long fifth joint parallel-sided except at the narrow base, and the elongate 

 thumb of the sixth joint with a low prominence near the apex, but L. forresti has 

 a ver}' marked emargiuation near the base of the fifth joint, and has the process near 

 the apex of the thumb very prominent. 



On the number of joints in the flagellum of the first antennae no .stress can 

 be laid, for one specimen of L. forresti has eight joints and another only six, while 

 one specimen of L. minuta has six joints on one of these antennae and seven on 

 the other, but a second has eleven joints in each flagellum. Yet all these 

 specimens have the remarkably developed chelipeds di.stinguishing the male of this 

 species. 



The two-jointed outer branch of the uropods is a little longer as observed in 



