52 Some Crustacea of Natal 
1887. Medeus distinguendus, de Man, Pr. Linn. Soc. London, vol. 
XK, Po. ollie 
1893. M. d., Henderson, Tr. Linn. Soc. London, vol. v, p. 359. 
1898. Xantho d., Alcock, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, vol. Ixvii, p. 113. 
A male specimen which I assign to this species occurred in 
company with the specimens of X. qwinquedentatus, from which it is 
distinguished in many details. As preserved, the lighter colour of 
the fingers of the chele at once attracts attention. The frontal 
margin, more truncate, is also distinctive, and the dorsal sculpture 
of the carapace is altogether different. The synonymy, however, 
for which as so often I am deeply indebted to Alcock’s elaborate 
research, involves some perplexities. Thus the figure by Miers of 
X. macgillivrayi in the ‘ Alert” Crustacea is the only one which, in 
my opinion, adequately indicates the numerous transverse ridges or 
series of granules on the carapace. But Henderson thinks de Haan’s 
figure a better representation of XY. macyillivrayr. Of that species 
Miers says that the male pleon has “the third to fifth segments 
coalescent,” with which Alcock’s account agrees, but of dewcomanus in 
the “Challenger” Report we read that of the pleon segments “ the 
third and fourth, and the fifth and sixth, are coalescent.” 
The carapace of the Durban specimen is 12 mm. long and 17 mm. 
broad at the hindmost of the antero-lateral teeth. The broader 
cheliped is on the right. There are other specimens in the collection, 
and one sent me by Mr. Bell Marley retains elegant colour markings 
on the carapace. 
Genus CHLORODOPSIS, A. Milne-Edwards. 
See Ann. 8. Afr. Mus., vol. vi, p. 300, 1910. 
CHLORODOPSIS C#LATUS (Dana). 
1852. Htisodes celatus, Dana, U.S. Expl. Exp., vol. xiii, p. 188, pl. 
9, figs. 4a—d. 
1906. Chlorodopsis areolata, Rathbun, U.S. Fish. Comm. for 1903, 
pt. 3, p. 858. 
Miss Rathbun follows Alphonse Milne-Edwards in identifying this 
species with C. areolatus (Milne Edwards). But the Natal specimens 
obtained at Durban by Mr. D. R. Boyce so well agree with Dana’s 
figures that they may perhaps justify a specific distinction. Dana 
takes no notice of C. areolatus, but must have been well aware that 
it had been described by Milne Edwards. 
