1913.] S. Kemp: Crustacea Stomatopoda of the Indo-Pacific Region. 155 



such forms — even though some seem never to reach maturity — will in the ordinary 

 course of natural selection result in races specially adapted to particular environmental 

 factors is far from improbable, and that it may already have occurred is still an open 

 question. Results of great importance may be expected from direct observations on 

 living animals and from a comparative examination of large collections from distant but 

 strictly localized areas. 



The scheme of classification adopted for these species differs, though not very 

 widely, from that given by most previous writers, but is diametrically opposed to 

 that suggested by Lanchester. The latter author was, I believe, misled by the small 

 size of the specimens which formed the vast majority of his material and many forms 

 that in the opinion of all previous authors were entitled to specific distinction he re- 

 garded as varieties of a single species. In this there is perhaps no great cause of com- 

 plaint, for the classification of some of the forms must long remain a matter of in- 

 dividual opinion. But in Lanchester' s scheme, which comprises a single species, 

 fourteen named varieties and a large number of lettered and numbered subheads, the 

 main features of the case are to a very great extent lost sight of, and certain forms 

 which by reason of their structure, geographical distribution or abundance, stand out far 

 ahead of all others are, in his account, placed on the same footing as other forms to 

 which not nearly the same significance can be attributed. It is here that I must dissent 

 most strongly from this author's views. 



But, in any endeavour to arrive at a true understanding of these matters, the data sup- 

 plied by Manchester and the excellent figures which he has given will always prove of great 

 value and though, in a recent revision of the genus, his work is wholly ignored, such a 

 course can hardly tend to a satisfactory solution of the problems that are involved. 



1. Gonodactylus chiragra (Fabricius). 

 Plate ix, fig. 107. 



1781. Squilla chiragra, Fabricius, Species Insectorurn, I, p. 515. 



1787. Squilla chiragra, Fabricius, Mantiss. Insect., I, p. 334. 



1790. Cancer chiragricus, Linnaeus, Syst. Nat., ed. XIII, I, p. 2990. 



1793. Squilla chiragra, Fabricius, Ent. Syst. II, p. 513. 



1796. Cancer {mantis) chiragra, Herbst, Krabben u. Krebse, II, p. 100, pi. xxxiv, fig. 2. 



1798. Squilla chiragra, Fabricius, Ent. Syst., Suppl., p. 417. 



1823. Squilla chiragra, Desmarest, Diet, des Sei. Nat., XXVIII, p. 342. 



1825. Squilla chiragra, Desmarest, Consid. Crust., p. 251, pi. xliii. 



1825. Gonodactylus chiragra, Latreille, Encycl. Method., X, p. 473, Atlas, pi. cccxxv, fig. 2. 



1829. Gonodactylus chiragra, Latreille. in Cuvier's Régne Anim., 2nd ed., IV, p. 109. 



1832. Gonodactylus chiragra, Owen, Proc. Zool. Soc, p. 6. 



1837. Gonodactylus chiragra, H. Milne-Edwards, Hist. Nat. Crust., II, p. 528. 



1843. Gonodactylus chiragra, Krauss, Siid-afric. Crust., p. 60. 



1847. Gonodactylus chiragra, White, Eist. Crust. Brit. Mus., p. 84. 



1852. Gonodactylus chiragra, Dana, U.S. Explor. Exped., Crust., p. 623, pi. xli, figs. 6a, b. 



1861. Gonodactylus chiragra, Heller, Verhandl. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, XI, p. 29. 



1862. Gonodactylus chiragra, A. Milne-Edwards, in Maillard's l'île Réunion, Ann. F. ; p. 16. 



1865. Gonodactylus chiragra, Heller, Reise ' Novara ' Exped., Crust., p. 126. 



1866. Gonodactylus chiragra, Annesley Proc. Zool. Soc, p. 338 (habits). 



