300 CHILTON 
Paguristes subpilosus Henderson, Chall. Rep. Anomura, 1888, p. 
Tipe vii hig. 2: 
G. M. Thomson, loc. cit., 1898, p. 187. 
Aleock, loc. cit., 1905, p. 156. 
One specimen from Station 5 and one from Station 26, the 
latter in a Voluta shell. These specimens agree closely with 
Heller’s description, and I have no doubt belong to the species 
deseribed by him. They also agree equally closely with the 
description given by Henderson for P. subpilosus, and the two 
species must be combined. Henderson himself had pointed out 
the resemblance between the two, but had not combined them 
as Heller described the dactyls of the ambulatory legs as scarcely 
shorter than the corresponding propods; as a matter of fact in 
the specimens before me they are, as Henderson describes them, 
half as long again as the propods. 
ANICULUS ANICULUS (Fabricius). 
Pagurus aniculus Fabr. Ent. Syst. i, 1793, p. 468, and 
Suppl: £798; p:  4u1. 
Aniculus typicus Miers, Cat. N.Z. Crust., 1876, p. 64. 
Hutton, N.Z. Journ. Sci., 1., 1882, p. 264. 
Filhol, Mission de 1’Te Campbell, 1885, p. 424. 
G. M. Thomson, Trans. N.Z. Inst., xxxi., 1898, p. 184. 
A. aniculus Aleock, Cat. Indian Decap. Crust., part wu 
Anomura, 1905, p. 94, pl. vii, fig. 6. 
A. R. McCulloch, Ree. Aust. Mus. vii., 1908, p. 59. 
Full synonymy of this widely distributed species will be found 
in Aleock’s report quoted above. 
One fine specimen of this species, with carapace 55mm. long 
in the median line, was obtained at Station 5, 7.e., 50 miles east 
of Stewart Island. This species was put down by Heller as being 
found at Auckland during the ‘‘Novara’’ Expedition. No 
subsequent specimens however had been obtained, and in 1882 
Hutton, in the work quoted above, placed it in a list of species 
which he thought should be struck out of the New Zealand. fauna 
as they had been inserted only on Heller’s authority, and were 
all large and conspicuous forms known mainly from warmer 
seas. It is interesting therefore to find this species turning up 
so far south as Stewart Island. The single specimen must I 
think undoubtedly be referred to this species, and on the whole 
it agrees well with Aleock’s description. I have been able to 
compare it with a specimen in the Canterbury Museum from 
‘*Polynesia,’’ and though it differs from this and from Alcock’s 
description in the points mentioned below, I do not think these 
are sufficient for specific distinction. 
? 
