ZOOLOGY OF FERNANDO NORONHA. 
509 
The arrangement of tubercles and teeth upon tire second, third, 
and fourth pairs of legs is nearly the same as the arrangement 
upon the first pair, but the posterior row of meral tubercles 
becomes progressively fainter from before backwards, and the 
teeth of the anterior row become gradually modified in form and 
number until, in the posterior pair of limbs, this row is formed 
of four teeth, two larger and two smaller, the larger and smaller 
alternating, and one of the larger being the most proximal of the 
series. Width of carapace 7 \ mm., length 7 mm. 
One male specimen was obtained. 
To guide me in the identification of the Fernando-Noronha 
specimen, which I refer to T. cristulipes (Stimps.), I have had to 
trust to the descriptions and figures of that species published by 
Dr. Stimpson and by M. Alphonse Milne-Edwards, and to my own 
examination of a single imperfect individual which was taken off 
Cape St. Lucas (California), and presented to the British Museum 
by the Smithsonian Institute. 
Now, although with the above-mentioned figures and descrip- 
tions the specimen from Fernando Noronha does not present 
agreement in all points, yet, making allowance for possible errors 
on the part of the artists, I should unhesitatingly have referred 
this specimen to T. cristulipes (Stmps.) were it not for the fact 
that the points of difference between it and the specimen from 
Cape St. Lucas are by no means inconsiderable. 
In the Californian specimen the sulci defining the regions of 
the carapace are conspicuously deeper, and the tubercles of the 
same part, though exhibiting in the main the same arrangement, 
are much larger. This is especially the case with regard to those 
of the branchial region, the three low tubercles of the antero- 
lateral margin in the Noronha specimen being represented 
in the Californian specimen by three large upstanding teeth. 
Again, with regard to the limbs, the merus of the chelipede in 
the Californian specimen is furnished below in front with one 
large compressed tooth and the pollex is armed with two 
small teeth, these small teeth being scarcely represented in the 
Noronha specimen. The other limbs present much the same 
arrangement of teeth in the two specimens, but, as in the case of 
the carapace, the teeth of the Californian specimen are relatively 
larger than those of the Noronha specimen. 
I am well aware that the differences thus set forth are amply 
sufficient to justify the separation as distinct species of the spe- 
