Dr. Henry Woodward — Cretaceous Crustacea, Denmark. 493 



Dromm-type, but which are devoid of the denticulations peculiar 

 to Dromia. These claws belong, no doubt, to representatives of the 

 genus Dromiopsis, which is so stated in one case (cf. D. Icevior) ; 

 among others of the figured species one is granulated in the same 

 way as the shell of D. rugosa, and belongs probably to that species. 



Of the genus Dromiopsis four species are already described, all 

 belonging to the newer Chalk formation, and all except D. elegans 

 known only from the Faxe Chalk. Dromiopsis gibbosus, Schliit.,^ 

 from the Belemnites mucronatus Chalk formation of Westphalia, does 

 not belong to this family, but ought probably to be referred to the 

 family Homolopsis of Bell. 



Dromiopsis resembles in many respects Dromia, and Von Fischer- 

 Benzon considered these two to be identical. Lundgren is also 

 of the same opinion. This is easily explained, as the genus Dromia 

 formerly comprised many more types than are now included with our 

 present knowledge of the genus. (Ortmann, " Arthropoda," p. 114.) 



" After examining recent specimens in the Zoological Museum 

 of Copenhagen I have been able to show distinct generic differences 

 between Dromia and the genus Dromiopsis as proposed by Eeuss. 

 Dromia differs very distinctly from Dromiopsis by its three-toothed 

 rostrum, and also by its long, nearly straight posterior border, much 

 larger pterygostomial region, and its very peculiarly serrated claws. 

 The genus Dromiopsis ought thus to be maintained and to be 

 considered as a precursor of Dromia. This last-mentioned genus 

 appears first in the Tertiary period, from which Bittner^ has 

 described several types all with the rostrum three-toothed. But 

 as regards the pterygostomian region these Tertiary species of 

 Dromia resemble Dromiopsis (cf. Bittner, ' Brachyuren v. Vicenza, 

 Neue Beitriige,' p. 307)." 



" The genus Dromilites of Milne-Edwards,^ belonging to the 

 Tertiary formation, with which Dromiopsis has also been considered 

 as identical, ought necessarily to be revised. The species belonging to 

 this genus differ more or less from Dromiopsis by the denticulations 

 on the lateral borders, by more distinct regions, and by the shape 

 of the branchial regions. Zittel's ^ diagnosis of the relationship both 

 of Dromiopsis and Dromia is now inapplicable." 



Deomiopsis kugosa, Schlotheim, sp. (PI. XII, Figs. 3a, b, and 4a-c.) 



1820. Brachjurites rugosus, Schlotlieim : Petrefactenkunde, p. 36, pi. i, fig. 2. 

 1851. Brachyurites rugosus, Quenstedt : Petrefactenkunde, p. 401, pi. xxxi, fig. 11. 

 1859. Dromiopsis rugosa, Eeuss : Fossil. Krabben, p. 10, pi. iii, figs. 2, 3 ; 

 pi. V, fig. 6. 



1866. Dromia rugosa, Von Fischer-Benzon : Alter d. Faxekalkes, p. 24, pi. iii, 



figs. 1-3. 



1867. Dromia rugosa, LunAgren: Faxekalken, p. 10. 



1900. Dromiopsis rugosa, Schlotheim, sp. : K. 0. Segerberg, Geol. Foren. I Stock- 

 holm Forliandl., Bd. xxii, H. 5. 



1 Schliiter : Krebse d. nordl. Deutschl., p. 610. 



2 Bittner : Brachyuren v. Vicenza, Neue Beitrage, p. 306, pi. i, fig, 5 ; Decapodeu 

 d. pannon. Tertiar, pp. 21, 25, pi. ii, figs. 5, 6. 



3 Bell : " Crust of London Clay," p. 27, pi. v, figs. 1-9 ; pi. vi. 

 * Zittel : Palaeont., ii, p. 703. 



