1900.] FBOM THE FALKLAND ISLANDS. 535 



divided lamellae ; lastly that the fifth pair of legs end in an imper- 

 fect chela, with very short fingers, and having on it a well-developed 

 rasp. The rasp of the legs of the fourth pair is sometimes broad, 

 sometimes formed of a single row of scales, but the first case is 

 much the more frequent. The branchial formula is that of Para- 

 pagurus." The authors do not give the branchial formula of Para- 

 pagurus, but probably accept Professor S. I. Smith's statement that 

 there are eleven pairs of branchiae, " two each at the bases of the 

 external inaxillipeds and the three first pairs of cephalothoracic legs, 

 and three at the bases of the fourth pair of thoracic legs, — as in 

 Eupagurus bernTiardus." 



The first generic character given by Henderson is, " Front with 

 a distinct rostral projection." This is modified by Thomson, who 

 writes, " Front usually slightly rostrate." The change is obviously 

 expedient, since Henderson says of his own Eu. rubricatus that the 

 " frontal projections are scarcely indicated, the median being ob- 

 tusely rounded ; " Milne-Edwards and Bouvier make a similar 

 remark in regard to their Eu.stimpsoni ; and of Eu. edwardsl Filhol, 

 Thomson declares that the front is " not at all produced on the 

 median line." Thomson also omits the character that the basal scales 

 of the ocular peduncles are " separated by a wide interval ;" and this 

 in fact seems little applicable to Dana's En. novce-zealandice, while 

 the two French authors just mentioned say of their Eu. smithii, 

 that the ophthalmic scales are separated by a trifling interval 

 (" intervalle mediocre "). 



Eeeently Miss Eathbun (Pr. U.S. Nat, Mus. vol. xxii. p. 302, 

 1900) has re-transferred Eupagurus Brandt to Pagurus Fabricius \ 

 and has given the name Petrochirus Stimpson to Pagurus as more 

 commonly accepted. For this change there may be some subtle 

 or simple explanation, but it is not supplied by the learned 

 authoress, and without further discussion such an innovation 

 should scarcely be accepted. If it be essential (as it may or may 

 not be) to rescue the name Pagurus for one of the species origin- 

 ally assigned to it by Fabricius, it would be more correct and less 

 confusing to sacrifice to it Dana's Aniculus, allowing Dana's own 

 Pagurus to fall under Stimpson's Petrochirus, as Miss Eathbun 

 proposes, but retaining Brandt's Eupagurus, with its numerous 

 species, undisturbed. 



Eupagurus comptus (White). 



1847. Pagurus comptus, White, Pr. Zool. Soc. vol. xv. p. 122. 



1848. Pagurus comptus, White, Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 2, vol. i. 

 p. 224. 



1858. Eupagurus comptus, Stimpson, Pr. Ac. Philad. p. 237 

 (Prodromus, p. 75). 



1871. Pagurus forceps ?, Cunningham, Tr. Linn. Soc. Lond. 

 vol. xxvii. p. 495. 



1 So also S. J. Holmes (California Stalk-eyed Crustacea, p. 132, 1900), 

 relying on J. E. Benedict (Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 6, vol. xviii. p. 99, 1896), who 

 relies on Latreille's Consid. gen. Crust, p. 421, 1810 — a broken reed, as I have 

 elsewhere ventured to maintain (Natural Science, vol. xii. no. 74, p. 239, 1898). 



