408 



A. E. Verrill — Decapod Crustacea of Bermuda. 



ever, specimens of intermediate sizes, that seem to unite the two 

 supposed species together in one series. 



Although this specimen appears to me to be the young of M. his- 

 pidtts, I have kept it under 31. depressus out of deference to the 

 opinion of Miss Rathbun, who has examined it, for she Has had 

 opportunities to study a far larger series of both forms than I have 

 had. 



It differs from the original figure of M. depressus (see our fig. 34), 

 not only in its proportions, but especially in having all the four 

 antero-lateral marginal teeth acute and curved forward, while in the 

 latter the anterior three are tuberculiform and obtuse. Its front is 

 narrower between the orbits. The basal antennal joint has the 



Figure 41. — Mithrax dejjresftits; a, dorsal view, x 2I3' times ; b, under side of 

 front, more enlarged. After A. M. -Edwards' original figures. According 

 to the natural size diagram of Edwards, his specimen was 13""" long and 

 12""" wide. 



inner tooth narrower and sharper, and the outer one more prom- 

 inent and acute. The merus of the chelipeds has a different form, 

 the proximal end being concave instead of convex, etc. It is rather 

 smaller than Edwards' type, which was also young, but longer than 

 wide, Avhile ours is wider than long. 



On plate xxiii, fig. 2, I have figured a St. Thomas specimen of 

 larger size, also labelled as 31. depressus b}^ Miss Rathbun, for com- 

 parison. This is rather larger than Edwards' type and agrees more 

 nearly with his figure in respect to the form of the marginal teeth, 

 but is otherwise very similar to the undoubted young of 31. hispidus. 

 The carpus of the young of the latter is also spinulous. 



The larger antennal tooth is shorter and more obtuse than in any 

 of the others figured. 



