A HISTORY OF SUSSEX 



1842.'^ Both White and Bell use the designation Nika edulis, Risso, 

 White calling the species ' Risso's shrimp,' and explaining that ' the 

 name here adopted is prior to Dr. Leach's, and is given to it from the 

 species being eaten on the coasts of the Mediterranean, as the Shrimp is 

 eaten here.' ^ But on the question of priority he is mistaken, since 

 Risso's genus and species were published in 181 6, while the fourth 

 part of Leach's Malacostraca Podophthalmata Britannia, containing, in 

 plate 41 and its accompanying text, the figures and description of 

 Processa r^/W/a/Az/^, was published on July i, 1815. Of the Pandalids 

 Pandalus montagui. Leach, is reported by Mr. Guermonprez as occurring 

 often at Bognor. The only other species at present claiming to rank 

 among Sussex prawns, as distinguished from shrimps, is involved in 

 much obscurity. In 1798 Fabricius established the genus Alpheus for 

 species in which the first pair of chelipeds are enormously larger than 

 the second and are composed of two unequal and dissimilar limbs, though 

 both are strongly chelate, while, instead of the long serrate horn with 

 which our ordinary prawns are armed, in Alpheus the rostrum is minute 

 and the carapace is produced over the eyes, thus protecting them by a 

 more or less pellucid shield. In evident allusion to this last character 

 the eccentric naturalist Rafinesque in 18 14, probably unaware of the 

 Fabrician genus, named a new one Cryptophthalmus, meaning ' eyes 

 under cover,' for a Mediterranean species which he called C. ruber. 

 In 1835 S. Hailstone, jun., Esq., while apparently still a tyro in the 

 subject, investigated several crustaceans from the Sussex coast, and then 

 submitted his descriptions, figures and specimens to the distinguished and 

 afterwards celebrated entomologist, J. O. Westwood. The latter pub- 

 lished a report upon them which in some respects was far from giving 

 satisfaction to Mr. Hailstone. The point here needing mention is that 

 one of the species was entitled ' Hippolyte rubra, Westwood,' and this 

 the discoverer of the specimen claimed a right to call ' H. macrocheles. 

 Hailstone.' Westwood himself was undecided both as to the genus and 

 the species, for he suggested that it might be proper to call the object 

 examined Cryptophthalmus ruber. Subsequently he formed a new genus 

 for it, Dienecia, with ' Hippolyte ? rubra ' for the type.' In 1837 Milne- 

 Edwards, knowing nothing of this insular dispute, called a species 

 Alpheus ruber, which goes by his name as author, although he explains 

 in a footnote that it appears to him to be the same as Rafinesque's species.* 

 In 1854 Mr. Guise described a species as A. affinis, and in 1857 

 Adam White, accepting this as distinct from A. ruber of Milne- 

 Edwards, gives the description, and in a footnote says, ' Mr. Guise thinks 

 this may be the Hippolyte rubra of Hailstone, on which Mr. Westwood 

 founded the genus Dienecia.' ^ But if Alpheus affinis. Guise, be distinct 

 from A. ruber (Rafinesque) and identical with A. ruber (Westwood), then 



' BntUh Sttilk-ned CrustMe^, p. 277. ^ Popular History of British Crustacea, p. 1 14. 



3 Loudon s Magazine of Natural History, viii. 274, 395, 552. * Hist. Nat. Crustaces, ii. 351. 



^ Popular History of Btitish Crustacea, p. 112, with reference to ' Jn». and Mag. Nat. Hist. (1854), 

 p. 278, fig. p. 280.' ^^g 



