Mr. R. I. Pocock on Ebalia nux, Milne-Edwards. 101 



surface strongly dentate ; hracMum subcostate behind, 

 smooth, but marked with setiferous pores ; smooth beneath 

 and furnished with many setiferous pores along the hinder 

 margin ; anterior surface finely granular and sparsely denti- 

 culate ; manus narrow, equalling in width the superior ridge 

 of the " hand-back," with lightly convex but distinctly den- 

 tate and hairy inner margin, scarcely produced posteriorly; 

 the upper surface ornamented with a reticulated pattern formed 

 by the anastomosis of low smooth ridges ; above the superior 

 ridge of the " hand-back " the surface is subcostate ; inferior 

 surface mostly smooth, coarsely but sparsely granular in 

 front, with two smooth keels ; dactyli granular, costate and 

 hairy ; the movable dactylus slightly longer than the hand. 



Legs. — The femora of the fourth pair feebly granular in 

 front ; for the rest tlie legs are almost entirely smooth and not 

 costate ; coxce^ especially of the anterior two pairs, punctured. 



Pectines short, projecting as far as the end of the fourth 

 coxse ; furnished with fourteen teeth. 



Measurements in millimetres. — -Total length 100'5 ; length 

 of cephalothorax 15, width lb 5 ; length of tail 49, of first 

 segment 6*5, of second 7"5, of third 8'2, of fourth 9*5, of tiftli 

 12, of vesicle Q'b^ of aculeus 4*5; width of first caudal seg- 

 ment Q'bj of fifth 4'5, of vesicle 4*5 ; length of humerus 13*7 ; 

 brachium, length 14*5, width 5*3 ; width of hand 11 ; length 

 of " hand-back " 10"5, of movable finger 16*5. 



A single male specimen without special locality. 



In the reticulated sculpturing of the hands this species 

 resembles Sc. indicus (Linn.); but it is of much more slender 

 build, with longer palpi, thinner hands, and longer tail. In 

 the form of its palpi it approaches the male of Sc. fulvipes ; 

 but in this species the upperside of the hand is coarsely granu- 

 lar and subcostate. 



X. — On Ebalia nux, Milne-Edwards. By E,. I. PocoCK. 



My attention has just been called to a passage on p. 316 of 

 the last number of the ' Journal of the Marine Biological 

 Association,' in which I regret to see that Canon Norman 

 has taken occasion to charge me by implication with lack of 

 courtesy for not giving what he considers due acknowledg- 

 ment to the name he applied to the above Crustacean; and since 

 such an accusation is likely to carry weight from such a source 

 and to leave a wrong impression on the minds of readers not 



