‘ 
R. DOUGLAS LAURIE—BRACHYURA. 433 
I do not share Nobili’s doubt as to the distinctness of the two species from 
one another. 
The only record of O. cervicornis from the Red Sea is that of von Martens, 
and, on the other hand, O. cwrvirostris has not been recorded outside the 
Red Sea and Persian Gulf. As pointed out by Nobili, von Martens made 
his identification when probably unaware of Milne-Edwards’s description of 
VU. curvirostris, published only the previous year. It would be of interest to 
re-examine von Martens’s examples. 
Genus CypHocarcinus, A. Milne-Edwards, 1868. 
15. CypHocarcinus minutus, A. M.-Edw., 1868. (Plate 44. fig. 3.) See 
Alcock, 1895, p. 254. 
Cyphocarcinus minutus, A. Milne-Edwards, 1868, p. 73, pl. 19. figs. 7-12. 
Cyphocarcinus minutus, Nobili, 1906, p. 177. 
Cyphocarcinus minutus, Nobili, 1907, p. 109. 
Ixion capreolus, Klunzinger, 1906, p. 44. 
Cyphocarcinus minutus, Rathbun, 1911, p. 255. 
Locality. Station VIII. B, 1 2 ,[42]. 
Remarks. ©.1. to base of rostral horns 7°5 mm., and to tip of rostral horns 
9°25 mm., rostral horn |. 2 mm. 
The figures which best represent the present specimen are those of 
Paulson (1875, pl. 2. fig. 1) of a young @, size not stated, given under the 
name of Jxion capreolus. In Paulson’s figure, however, the gastric hump 
is less marked and the rostral horns are longer than in my @? specimen. 
Klunzinger translates Paulson’s description. 
Nobili (1907, loc. cit.) gives a useful account of the species. 
The present specimen differs strikingly, in three respects more particularly, 
from A. Milne-Edwards’s account of C. minutus: (a) it will be seen from my 
figure that in the present specimen the pre-gastric region slopes a little 
forward so that it is not hidden in a dorsal view of the animal, as described 
by Milne-Hdwards, and affords a considerable contrast from his fig. 10, 
which is referred to by Nobili as well representing his own specimens ; 
(b>) the rostral horns are not pressed against each other in their basal portion 
as described by Milne-Hdwards, but stand well apart, contrasting strongly 
with his figure 8; (c) the basal joint of the first antenna and the joint 
following, though of the same general type, are less shortened in the 
present example than in Milne-Edwards’s figure, so that a distinctly different 
appearance results from a ventral view. 
In regard to (a) above my specimen appears to be similar to Rathbun’s 
‘Sealark’ specimens from Amirante and Coetivy (loc. cit.), and in regard to 
(L) Rathbun’s specimens appear in some degree intermediate between mine 
and that of Milne-Edwards. 
LINN. JOURN.—ZOOLOGY, VOL. XXXI. 34. 
S 
