4t> 



PROCEEDINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA 



The ciiiapax in this species is considerably narrowed posteriorly, is much 

 less convex than usual in the genus, and of an olive color. The chelipeds of 

 the female closely resemble the smaller cheliped of the male. 



No. 80. Male and female. Magdalena Bay, in spirits. Fisher and Lock- 

 iugton. 



Gehis'riiins sttni)d<«-U/lnK? Edwds. & Lucas, Voy. dans L'Auier. Mer. Crust., 26 

 pi. 11, f. 2. M. Edwds. Ann. des Sci. Nat., 3d serie. Zodl., tome 

 xviii., p. 119. S. T. Smith, lor. ,;/., 139. 



I have not seen the descrijition of this species by Edwds. and Lucas, and 

 therefore question its identity with a single male specimen of a (Telashnus 

 with very short fingers that was brought from the West Coast of Lower Cali- 

 fornia by Mr. Fisher. 



The fingers of the larger cheliped are very short, the dactylus does not 

 attain the length of the inferior marf^in of the palm, and the propodal finger 

 is much shorter. 



The mauus of the smaller cheliped resembles that of U . (/ibbosKs. The 

 carapax is highly convex, the anterior lateral angles almost in a line with the 

 front, so that the orbital border is but slightly sinuous; the inferior orbital 

 border dentate, and the lateral margins converging. 



Length of carapax 7 



Breadth of carapax 13 



Length of larger hand 14 



(xel((swiiis n-ciihiliis, iior.sp.? 



Among the delns'inu collected by Mr. Fisher on the West Coast of Lower 

 California are two specimens which I cannot refer to either of the broad- 

 fronted species from this coast, described by S. I. Smith and Stimpson, viz: 

 't. fi'ih})nsnfi, a. pandDtensls and 'i. hjn-ifrovs. As I have not seen the descrip- 

 tions of (r. int(rro(Iafti/li(s and G. siciKidnrli/^ns, it may possibly be one of these, 

 though neither name seems applicable. 



I append a short description : 



Front narrower than usual in the broad-fronted section of this genus, not 

 much more than half the width of the buccal frame; carapax tapering pos- 

 teriorly, the sides forming an almost straight line from the antero-lateral 

 angles to the straight jjosterior margin; antero-lateral angles much posterior 

 to the line of the front, acute and with considerable lateral projection. Up- 

 per orbital border highly sinuous entire, lower orbital border toothed at its 

 outer angle. Outer niaxillipeds greatly gibbous, the buccal area separated 

 from the jugal by a distinct depression. Larger chelii^ed smooth (micro- 

 scopically granulated), except on inner surface of manus, where there 

 is a line of small tubercles on the inner edge of the propodal finger, and a 

 second on the ridge proceeding upwards from the lower edge of that finger. 

 Fingers tubercular on their inner edges, the largest tubercles that in the 

 centre of the length of each, and that near the tip of propodal finger. 

 Fingers of smaller cheliped parallel, equal, imperfectly spoon-shaped. 



Hands of female similar to the smaller cheliped of male. Ambulatory feet 



