1922. j S. Kemp : Notes on Crustacea Decapoda. 237 



(ix) The anterior of the two pairs of dorsal spines on the 

 telson is placed a little behind the middle of its length. The 

 posterior pair is midway between the anterior pair and the apex. 



The specimen bears a very close resemblance to H. conso- 

 brinus. The following are the only points of any significance in 

 which it differs from de Man's fully detailed description : — 



(i) The carina behind the orbital margin is not mentioned 

 by de Man. 



(ii) The hepatic spine is set far back from the frontal margin 

 of the carapace. 



(iii) The fused portion of the outer antennular flagellum is 

 composed of ir segments. 



(iv) The carpus of the second peraeopod does not exhibit on 

 its upper side the " scharfe kante" referred to by de Man; this, 

 however, is not shown in his figures. The palm is slightly more 

 than 1 "5 times the length of the fingers, whereas in H. consobrinus 

 it is less than V2 times. Except that there are only 5 teeth on 

 each finger, the second leg agrees closely in all other respects with 

 de Man's descriptions and figures. 



(v) The last three peraeopods are much stouter. In H. 

 consobrinus the merits of the third leg is 5 times and the propodus 

 7 times as long as wide. The breadth of the dactylus is scarcely 

 more than half the distal breadth of the propodus, whereas ac- 

 cording to de Man's figure the two are almost equally broad in 

 H. consobrinus. 



(vi) De Man speaks of three pairs of dorsal spines on the 

 telson in H. consobrinus , but this is perhaps merely an abnormality. 



The specimen differs from Dana's figures in a number of points, 

 particularly in the deeper rostrum and in the much stouter carpus 

 and shorter fingers of the second leg. The figures, as de Man has 

 pointed out, are doubtless erroneous in many respects, but the 

 specimen agrees with them and differs from H. consobrinus in the 

 position of the hepatic spine. 



The specimen from the Red Sea, which Nobili records without 

 comment as H. lutescens, presumably belongs to the same species 

 as that which I have examined. Nobili, however, when writing 

 in 1906, appears not to have been aware that de Man had given 

 the name H. consobrinus to the specimens he formerly described 

 as H. lutescens. The specimens which Balss has recorded from 

 the Red Sea as H. consobrinus also probably belong to this species. 



Harpilius lutescens was described by Dana from a specimen 

 obtained at Tongatabu in Polynesia. If my identification is correct 

 its distribution extends westwards to the Red Sea. 



Harpilius consobrinus de Man. 



1SS7. Harpilius lutescens, de Man, Arch. Naturgesch. I.I II, i, p. 536, 



pi. xxiin, fig. 1. 

 1902. Harpilius lutescens, de Man, Abhandl. Senck. naturf. Ges. XXV, 



p. 836, pi. xxvi, fig. 54. 



Ternate and Noordwachter Is. 



