314: On the Holoti/pe oj Ammothea carolinensis. 



Ammoihea, it is clear that, as Boiivier himself has snp-gested, 

 Leach's species finds its place near A. grandis, Pt'effer, and 

 A. gihhosa (Mobius). The difference between these two 

 species is not very f^ieat, and Bouvier even suggests that they 

 niiglit be united, but, taking the ciiaracters as he gives them, 

 the comparatively short and horizontal abdomen, the incon- 

 spicuous tuberosities on the lateral processes, and, above idl, 

 tlie more numerous and closely-set spinules, not arranged in 

 bands, on the legs, are points in which tlie present specimen 

 agrees rather with A. grandis. A closer comparison is 

 hindered by the fact that, while the ciiaracters of both 

 species are known to change very considerably with growth, 

 no detailed description of immature specimens of A. grandis 

 lias been ]^ublisiied. There are, in the Museum collection, 

 three specimens that I believe to belong to the last-named 

 species. One of these is immature, with clu late chelophores, 

 but it is much smaller than Leach's holotype and it is in 

 such bad condition as to be of little use for comparison. 

 Assuming, however, that such ciiaracters as the relative 

 shortness and stoutness of the legs and greater length of tho 

 propodus are due to immaturity, while tlie shortness of the 

 trunk is caused by shrinkage in drying, I am unable to point 

 to a •single definite character by which Leach's specimen 

 can be differentiated from Pfeffer's species. Until it is 

 possible to compare the type-specimens of the two species side 

 by side (which is unlikelj' to be for some time), I propose 

 that the species should be united, with the following 

 synonymy : — 



Ammothea carolinensis. Leach. 



Ammothea carolinensis, Leach, Zool. Miscellany, i. p. 34, pi. xiii. (1814). 

 Nymphnm carolinensis, i\. Milne-Edwards, Hist, INat. Crust, iii. p. 534 



(1840). 

 Ananothea g}'andts, Pfeffer, Jahrb. Hamburg. Wiss. Anst. vi. (2) 



p. 43 (1889). 

 Colussendeia (?) charcoti, Bouvier, Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, xi. 



p. 296 (1905). 

 LeionympUon yrande, Hodgson, Nat. Antarct. Exped. ' Discovery,' 



Zool. iii. p. 41, pi. vi. iig. 1 (1907) ; Bouvier, Exped. Antarctique 



P'ran9aise 1903-1905, Pycuogouides du ' Fran9ais,' p. GO, figs. 40-48 



(1907). 

 Ammothea grandis, Bouvier, Deuxieiue Exp6d. Antarctique rran9aise 



1908-1910, Pycnogonides du ' Pourquoi Pas ?,' p. 126 (1913). 



