NATURAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN LOBSTER. l6l 



The question of the validity of Latreille's types in his "Considerations G6n^rales ..." 

 of 1810, has been raised by Stebbing, who would restore the terminology of Leach, desig- 

 nating Astacus Potamobius and Homarus Astacus.'^ 



Aside from the merits of this controversy, it may be well to point out again that 

 LatreUle and others who have followed him were wrong in asserting that Aristotle makes 

 no mention of the river crayfish {149). On the contrary, the Father of Zoology uses 

 the term daraicbc to designate both crayfish and lobster, and so far as antiquity is con- 

 cerned neither has the claim of priority.* 



The Norwegian lobster is common not only to Norway but to the coasts of Scotland 

 and Ireland. While essentially a northern form, it is found as far south as the Medi- 

 terranean but in much less abundance. It attains a length of from 7 to 8 inches, and 

 in life is of a deUcate flesh tint, boldly marked with Ught brown in symmetrical pat- 

 tern over the abdomen and tail fan. Its slender form suggests the shrimp type, and 

 its large kidney-shaped eyes remind one of PencBus, and of the adolescent lobster 

 (Homarus) when from i to 3 inches long. The claws of the first pair of thoracic legs are 

 slender, of nearly equal size and keeled above, below, and at the sides, each keel having 

 a single, or at the sides a double row of spines. Bell, writing at the middle of the last 

 century, said of this species that it was frequently on sale in the Edinburgh markets, 

 and was occasionally seen in London. 



The European lobster is found on the shores of the British Islands, and on the 

 western coast of Europe from Norway to the Mediterranean. The southwestern coast 

 of Norway appears to be the central point of its distribution and still supports the 

 largest of the European fisheries, but the species is found northward as far at least as 

 Tromso, or to about 69^-70° north latitude. (See 306.) It is very rare, if present at 

 all, in Iceland. It does not appear to enter the Baltic, and is not common in the 

 Mediterranean, being limited in its eastern range by the Adriatic Sea. In Great Britain 

 it is chiefly confined to certain districts on the west and north coasts. 



Of the three kinds of lobsters already described for the Atlantic and its tributaries, 

 the Norwegian and common lobsters are typical northerly forms, while the langouste 

 or Palinurus abounds only in the south. The best fishing grounds for the common 

 lobster in the Scottish seas are said to be the Orkney and Outer Hebrides islands. 



The common lobster of Europe resembles the American lobster so closely in every 

 structural detail that the two might at first sight be considered as geographical varieties 

 of the same stock rather than as distinct species. It has been pointed out that the under 

 side of the beak or rostrum is smooth in the Homarus gammarus, while in the American 

 form it is armed with a spine, a rather trivial distinction in view of the variable character 



1 This commission reported to the Congress, which met at Graz, August, igio, in favor of accepting Latreille's type desig- 

 nations. The term Astacus should therefore be restricted to the crayfishes, and the names stand as designated in the text. 

 See opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Publication No. 1938, Smithsonian Insti- 

 tution, Washington, 1910. 



6 Those interested in discussions of this character are referred to no. 225 and no. 260 of thebibliographyat theend of this work, 

 and also to the following: Rathbun, Mary J., List of the decapod Crustacea of Jamaica, Annals of the Institute of Jamaica, vol. 

 I, no. 1, 46 p. Jamaica, 1897; Faxon, Walter, Observations on the Astacidae in the U. S. National Museum and in the Museum of 

 Comparative Zoology, with descriptions of new species, Proceedings U. S. National Museum, vol. xx, p. 643-694, Washington, 

 1898; Stebbing, Thomas R. R., The late lamented LatreiUe, Natural Science, vol. xn, p. 239-244. London, 1899. 



