R. DOUGLAS LAURIE—BRACHYURA. 471 
margins of the apposed borders of the fingers. The granulation occurs on 
both borders of the meri, the upper borders of the carpi, and both borders of 
the propi of the walking-legs, also traces on outer surface of the 3rd and 
4th pairs more particularly; the granulation of the lower borders of the 
meri of the 2nd and 3rd pairs of walking-legs is visible to the naked eye. 
Perhaps an important point about JZ. graefei (my specimens included) 
is that the eye-stalk extends just beyond the tip of the outer orbital tooth 
(for a distance approximately equal to the length of the tooth) ending in 
a blunt point or tubercle drawn out distal to the pigmented region. The 
spiniferm outer orbital tooth reaches to about the middle of the pigmented 
region. 
Macrophthalmus graefe. is evidently closely related to M. convevus, 
Stimpson, 1858 (Stimpson, 1907, p. 97, pl. 13. fig. 2.a—-b), and M. inermis, 
A. Milne-Hdwards, 1867 (A. Milne-EHdwards, 1873 (1), p. 277, pl. 12. 
figs. 5, 5a), but differs from both in (a) the relative length of the eye-stalks, 
which in both the latter do not extend beyond the orbit and so fall short of 
the tip of the outer orbital tooth ; (6) the more spiniform and more trans- 
versely disposed character of the antero-lateral teeth of the carapace; this is 
particularly seen in the Ist, 2. ¢. the outer orbital angle, since this is the largest, 
but is also well seen in the second one ; (c) the merus of each of the first three 
pairs of walking-legs bears a subterminal tooth; in J/. converus the merus 
of the 4th pair also has such a tooth, though, in five specimens from the 
Andaman Islands described by Alcock, it was absent not only from the fourth 
pair, but also from the first pair ; in M.imermis none of the meri of walking- 
legs bear such a tooth. 
M. graeffer agrees with M. inermis and differs from MJ. converus in the 
degree of pilosity of the inner surface of the chele. In all three the inner 
surface of the fingers is pilose, but while the inner surface of the hand 
is pilose also in M/. convevus the pilosity is confined in M. inermis and in 
M. graeffer to the distal margin bordering the fingers (see Milne-Edwards’s 
figure of both, loc. cit.). I give outlines from photographs of chelipeds of 
3 and @ specimens of M. graeffer. 
Alcock’s treatment of MZ. inermis as a synonym of MZ. convexus appears to 
me to be open to question. ‘The two species agree in the length of the eye- 
stalks as well as in many other ways, but Milne-Edwards’s text and figure 
both describe A/. inermis as having only two antero-lateral teeth on the 
carapace ; the difference in subterminal meral spines of walking-legs and 
in pilosity of the inner surface of the hand have been noted above, and 
a comparison of the figures of Milne-Edwards and Stimpson suggests 
various points of difference in carapace form. 
I find also that Rathbun (1906, p. $84), in recording M. inermis from 
the Hawaiian Islands, states very definitely her view that it is quite another 
species from M/Z, convexus. 
