CRUSTACEA OF THE MERGTJI AECHIPELA&O. 3 



This fact leads me to direct attention to the confusion that still 

 exists regarding the synonymy of many common Indian Podo- 

 phthalmous Crustacea. This circumstance may be accounted for 

 by the fact that sucb authors as Milne-Edwards, de Haan, and 

 Dana, when describing species of former carcinologists, e. g. of 

 Fabricius and Herbst, had neither studied nor examined their 

 typical specimens, preserved in the Museums of Kiel, Copen- 

 hagen, and BerHn ; although the diagnoses of Fabricius and the 

 descriptions and figures of Herbst were often too short or insuf- 

 ficient to enable the species to be satisfactorily recognized. A 

 renewed examination of the typical specimens of these older 

 carcinologists, so far as they are still available, appears to me 

 to be most desirable. 



I have made a beginning in this direction by examining the 

 types of certain species described by Fabricius, Milne-Edwards, 

 and some others, so far as this was necessary for the present 

 Eeport ; and I am now occupied with a critical study of the 

 Australian species which were described about twenty years 

 ago by Mr. Hess. I have given in the present Eeport some 

 results of these studies, which I think will prove to be of value 

 and contribute to a more exact knowledge of the common Indian 

 Decapoda, I have also pointed out the distinctive characters of 

 Menippe Rumpliii, Fabr,, and of Myomenippe granulosa, A. M.- • 

 Edw., both common species of large size, but which nevertheless 

 were insufficiently known. I have furthermore given new and 

 full descriptions of four common species of Gelasimus, and have 

 elucidated the characters of the little-known group of Metaplaoo 

 and those also of many species of the genus Sesarma, which are 

 so extremely difficult to distinguish that great confusion regard- 

 ing them is still observable in carcinological works. 



The Collection made by Prof. Anderson contains, as already 

 observed, a large number of interesting forms. I would especi- 

 ally call attention to the following species : — a new form of the 

 rare Maioid genus Harrovia, two rare species of Leptodius (L. 

 nudipes and L. cavipes), two species of Seteropanope ; a large 

 series of Goniosoma merguiense and of Gelasimus; two new 

 forms of the singular genus Dotilla ; the new genus Dioxifpe ; 

 the rare and interesting forms of Metaplax ; eight species of 

 Porcellana ; and, finally, the interesting species of Macrura. 



Some common Indian genera, on the contrary, are not at all 



1* 



