372 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 



8 of which were additions to Stimpson's list. Seven years later Coues and Yarrow, 

 in the fifth installment of " Notes on the fauna of Fort Macon, N. C, and vicinity (No. 

 5)"° gave a short hst of 6 species, 2 of which had not appeared in any previous list. 

 An appendix to the same paper, by J. S. Kingsley, entitled "A list of the decapod crus- 

 taceans of the Atlantic coast whose range embraces Fort Macon," * included 63 species, 

 of which 51 were definitely credited to Beaufort or Fort Macon and 3 were additions 

 to the fauna. A year later the same author published a paper under the title, "On 

 a collection of crustaceans from Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, with a revision 

 of the genera of Crangonidae and Palffimonidae"" in which he mentions 36 species as 

 having come from Beaufort or Fort Macon. Of these, 8 were new records. 



The collection which was the subject of Kingsley's report had been made by Prof. 

 H. E. Webster, of Union College. It was later transferred, in part at least, to the United 

 States National Museum and supplied the types of Lepidopa wehsteri Benedict and 

 Pinnixa cristaia Rathbun, both of which were collected near Beaufort. 



During the years that Johns Hopkins University maintained its seaside laboratory 

 at Beaufort, the crustaceans were studied by Dr. Brooks and a number of his students. 

 A great deal was added to the knowledge of the habits and development of some of the 

 species, but only one or two new ones were added to the fauna.'' 



The manuscript of the junior author included 87 species, but he omitted 8 which 

 had been listed by the writers already mentioned. His additions to the fauna were 33 

 species, making a total of 95 species for the Beaufort region. 



The careful and systematic survey of the ofiFshore fishing banks by the steamer 

 Fish Hawk during the summers of 1914 and 1915, energetic shore and shallow water 

 collecting by parties from the laboratory and the inclusion of the fresh-water species 

 of the region have enabled the senior author to add 57 species to those already known, 

 and the detection by Dr. Mary J. Rathbun of a hitherto unknown species of Parapinnixa 

 brings the total to 153. 



The status of some of these species may justly be questioned, but it has been thought 

 advisable to include all that have been reported from the region and all which, from 

 what is known of their habits and distribution, are reasonably certain, sooner or later, 

 to fall into the hands of the collector. There are also included several species which are 

 perhaps, strictly speaking, deep-water forms ranging well beyond the 50-fathom line. 

 In nearly all cases, however, they are represented in our collections by specimens from 

 shallower water or are known to enter shallower water in localities not far to the north 

 or to the south. The report thus becomes virtually a descriptive list of the decapod 

 crustaceans of the Middle Atlantic coast, and, to a large measure, fills the gap between 

 the various lists of New England, New York, and New Jersey crustaceans, and the 

 Porto Rican fauna described by Dr. Mary J. Rathbun. It includes a large proportion 

 of the species whose northern limit of distribution has been supposed to be in the neigh- 

 borhood of Charleston, S. C, together with many that, up to the present, have not been 

 known north of Florida or the West Indies. 



a Proc. Acad. Nat Sci. Phil., vol. XXX, p. 297-315. 1878. 

 I> Ibid., p. 316-330. 



' Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., vol. xx.xj, p. 3S3-427, pi. 14. 1879. 



d SUnopus kispidus, the larval form ol which was reported by Brooks and Herrick (Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci., V, 339-353) is not 

 included in the present paper. The adult has not been collected north of the Bahamas. 



