Rev. T. R. R. Stebbiiig on Arctic Crustacea 6 



184(). P<ii/iints piihc.'treus, KriiviT, Gaimard's \oy. du Noid, Crust., 



Atlas, |)1. ii. l\<r. 1. ' 



18.")!. JJiijxii/nrus jmbesccm, Ih-aiidt, MiddendorfTs Sibirische Keiso, 



vol. ii. j)t. I, pi>. 31, .';4. 3."). 

 18r)3. J'a(/nrus T/ioiiij)sou{, IJoll, British Stalk-eyed Crustacea, p. 372, 



11^:. in text. 

 l.'^oS. I'ujtfifiurus jnibescens, Stiinpson, and Eupayurus Kriii/erl, Stimp- 



son (botli Avitlioiit description), I'r. Ac. Piiilad. pp. 75, 87. 

 18-">!'. Eiipaijurus Knii/cri, .Stinipson, Ann. Lye. Nat. Hist. New York, 



vol. vii. p. 81). 

 1871>. Eupagunis imbescens, S. I. Smith, Trans. Connect. Ac. vol. v. 



pt. 1, p. 47. 

 1879. Eupayurus Kroyeri, S. I. Smith, ibid. p. 48. 

 1882. Eupayurus puhL'Scens, Sars, Forh. Selsk. Chiistian. no. 18, p. 42, 



pi. i. tigs. 1-2. 

 188(j. Eujiagurus puhvscenx, Henderson, Cruet. Decap. Firth of Clyde, 



p. 2G. 

 1888. Eupayurus puhrscois, var. Kriiyeri, Henderson, liep. Voy. 



' Challenger,' vol. x.wii. p. Go. 



Ill first eslablislilii^ the species Kroyer assigned to it two 

 distinctive cliaractcvs, the long soft iiairs clothing the cheliped.s 

 and the form of the left hand, which, however, he left un- 

 dcscribed. In the same year he gave anotiier characterization 

 as follows : — " Dorsal surface of the cephalotiiorax and the 

 legs den-selj beset with yellow sette, and a strong dentate 

 carina of the right hand extending from the base of the finger 

 to the outer carina of the wrist," This was followed by a 

 comparison or contrast instituted between the new si)ecie3 and 

 FcKjurus bernliardus. No mention at all is made of the left 

 hand ; but Brandt is no doubt right in supposing that Kroyer 

 by a slip of the pen wrote " dextra; " in place of " sinistra?." 



Bell probably instituted his Pagurus Thompsoni in igno- 

 rance or furgetfulness of Kroyer's species, and he speaks of 

 the .«mall anterior leg (that is, the left chclijjed) as " nearly 

 linear," without noticing the characteristic cariiui. Stim[)son 

 found specimens which agreed with the figure in Gaimard's 

 ' Voy. (luKord ' in having the pubescence littlo demonstrative, 

 and both he and afterwards Professor S. I. Smith concluded 

 that Krciytn- had mixed up two distinct species. Professor 

 yn.ith finds numerous minute distinctions in the outline, 

 jiosition, and denticulation of tiie outer carina of the left hand 

 in the two forms. But Professor Sars maintains that the 

 two cannot possibly be separated specifically. He urges that 

 the pubescence of body and legs is on the whole very variable, 

 and that the form of the left chela varies a good deal in the 

 two sexes — in the fenu-.le fairly corresponding with Smith's 

 account of Eupagnrus Kroi/eri and in the male with his 

 Eupayurus pubescens. lie finds the male a.s a rule more 



