10 STOLICZKA :— TEETIAEY 



below ; the last joints are comparatively very long, eacli considerably exceeding in 

 length its relatively previous joint. The last joint has a strong, punctated, groove 

 near the base on either side and six other longitudinal grooves originating a 

 short distance from the base and continuing to the tip. 



The sternum is long and comparatively narrow, its greatest width being 

 somewhat less than one-third the width of the carapace ; there is no appreciable 

 difference in its form in the two sexes, but the tails are, as usually, very different 

 in shape. In the female all the seven joints are separated; the first is short- 

 est, each of the four succeeding a little broader, the sixth nearly double the 

 length of the previous, the seventh again a little longer and of a more or less 

 broadly semi-elliptical or semi-oval shape. The width of all the previous joints 

 differs very slightly; all are about the middle slightly convex anteriorly and" 

 concave posteriorly. In the male, the third, fourth and fifth joints are united, 

 the suture being indicated by a few minute dots ; the third joint is widest, and the 

 two others with conspicuously concave lateral margins. 



In every other respect male and female specimens do not appear to differ from 

 each other. 



Locality. — Stream under Kootra Hillj near Pipiir, in soft^ yellowish, argil- 

 laceous beds, containing a very large number of Orhitulites and other Forcmtinifera ; 

 also in similar beds north of Kannai ; rolled up, west of Bair, in a kind of glauconitic 

 sandstone ; one mile east of Goer, in Kutch ; and in a light-brown nummulitic 

 limestone in the Lukkee Hills, in Sind. 



I am not certain whether the present species is the same to which Milne- 

 Edwards (Hist. Crust. Podoph., vol. I, p. 186,) refers as being identical with Palceoc. 

 macrocheilus, Desm., a species of very wide geographical distribution, occurring in 

 nummulitic beds of South Prance, Northern Italy, Egypt, and supposed also in 

 the Hala range of the Punjab. I have not seen a single Indian specimen which 

 could satisfactorily be identified with that species, but it is perhaps not correct 

 to suppose that Milne-Edwards had overlooked such marked distinctions 

 as those existing between F. macrocheilus and rugifer. The general shape of 

 the carapace is in both much the same; but in the Indian species the front is 

 considerably wider, being very nearly or fully equal to the length of the antero- 

 lateral margin, while in macrocheilus the latter margin is invariably lono-er than 

 the width of the front ; further, none of the rugosities so conspicuous on the 

 branchial regions of the carapace and on the upper outer sides of the hands of 

 rugifer are to be observed in any of the existing figures of macrocheilus ; in this 

 species also the tubercles at the upper edge of the two hands are smaller and 

 more numerous than in rugifer ; in macrocheilus the base of the first antennary 

 joint is thick, sub-quadrate, and the end obliquely obtuse, while in rugifer the base 

 is much less high and the outer end is regularly truncate ; the total length of the 

 basilar joint also appears to be greater in the last-named species. Some other 

 distinctions which seem to possess rather a generic than a specific value, I have 

 already had occasion to notice. 



