612 SUB ANT ARCTIC ISLANDS OF NEW ZEALAND. [Crustacea. 



Genus Eupagurus, Brandt, 1851. 

 Distribution. — ^Widely distributed. 



Eupagurus campbelli, Filhol. 



Eupagurus camfheUi, Filhol, " Mission de I'lle Campbell," p. 421, pi. Hi, 

 fig. 3, 1885 ; G. M. Thomson, Trans. N.Z. Inst., xxxi, p. 183, 1899. 



Taken by Filhol in Perseverance Harbour, Campbell Island, at a depth of 5 to 

 6 metres. I have not seen any specimens of this species. 



Genus Munida, Leach, 1820. 

 Distribution. — In all seas. 



Munida subrugosa (White). 



Galathea subrugosa, White, List Crust. Brit. Mus., 1847. Munida subrugosa, 

 Miers, Zool. " Erebus " and " Terror," Crust., p. 3, pi. iii, fig. 2, 1874 ; 

 Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., xi, p. 340, 1879 ; Henderson, Rep. 

 " Challenger " Anomura, p. 124, 1888 ; G. M. Thomson, Trans. N.Z. 

 Inst., xxxi, p. 194, 1899 ; Hodgson, " Southern Cross " Crust., p. 232, 

 1902 ; Chilton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., xxxvii, p. 320, 1905. ? Galathea 

 gregaria, Fabricius, Ent. Syst., ii, p. 473, 1793. ? Grimothea gregaria, 

 Henderson, Rep. " Challenger "^ Anomura, p. 124, 1888. G. novae- 

 zealandiae, Filhol, " Mission de I'lle Campbell," p. 426. 



This species is very abundant at the Auckland and Campbell Islands, and is 

 widely distributed in sub antarctic seas. 



The relationship of Munida subrugosa and Grimothea gregaria has been the subject 

 of much dispute. Miers suggested that Grimothea gregaria is the immature form of 

 Munida subrugosa, and the question has been since discussed by Hutton, Henderson, 

 Thomson, Hodgson, and others, without any definite conclusion being arrived at. 

 Hutton was, I believe, the first to point out that the two forms are different in habit, 

 Grimothea gregaria being pelagic, while Munida subrugosa lives at the bottom of the 

 sea ; and he argued from this, and from the fact that small forms are found with the 

 maxillipedes shortened, as in Munida subrugosa, that the two species were distinct. 

 Henderson and others have since likewise pointed out that small forms with the 

 characters of Munida subrugosa are found, and have similarly upheld the distinction 

 of the two species. The fullest discussion of the question has been given by Thomson, 

 who gives measurements of various individuals, and shows that the difference in the 

 length and development of the external maxillipedes is a comparative one, and that 

 these appendages do not, after all, differ very greatly in the two forms — thus, in 

 Munida subrugosa the relative length of the body to that of the external maxillipedes 

 is about 5 to 2, while in Grimothea gregaria it is 5 to less than 3. He is therefore 

 inclined to treat Grimothea gregaria as merely a stage in the development of Munida 

 subrugosa. 



My own observations certainly lead me to confirm the measurements made by 

 Mr. Thomson. The difference in the appearance of the external maxillipedes in the 

 two forms is largely due, not so much to their actual size, as to the way in which 



