ig22.] 



S. Kemp : Notes on Crustacea Decapoda. 



153 



maxilliped indicates that the species must be referred to the Ponto- 

 niinae and, as the mandible does not possess a palp, it cannot be 

 placed in Dana's Palaemonella. The dactyli of the last three legs 

 are biunguiculate and the species in all other characters agrees with 

 Periclimenes s.s., as defined in this paper. 



Alcock in 1901 recorded four specimens of this species, all of 

 which I have examined. The largest of the four is in my opinion 

 specifically distinct -from the other three, and I have described it 

 below under the name of P. alcocki. 



Periclimenes laccadivensis is very closely related to P. latipollex, 

 but is distinguished by the following characters : — 



Text-fig. 20. — Periclimenes laccadivensis (Ale. and And.). 



a. Second peraeopod. b. Fingers of second peraeopod. 



c. Dactylus of (hird peraeopod (setae at distal end of propodus omitted). 



The rostrum (text- fig. 19) is less slender and is shorter, not 

 quite reaching the end of the antennal scale; it is armed with 10 

 teeth above and 2 or 3 below. Th^ hepatic spine is situated on a 

 lower level than the antennal. The antennal scale is rather 

 broader j about 275 times as long as wide in an ovigerous female, 

 and the distal spine does not reach quite as far forwards as the apex 

 of the lamella. The carpus of the first peraeopod is a little longer 

 than the chela. The peraeopods of the second pair (text-fig. 20a) 

 are distinctly unequal, but otherwise resemble those of the related 

 species ; the dactylus, however, is not flanged along its outer edge. 

 The armature of the cutting edges of the fingers (text-fig. 20b) 



