162 ZOOL OGISCHE MEDEDEELINGEN — DEEL I. 



1882. M. Verreauxi Haswell. Cat. Austral. Crust., p. 89 (Australia). 

 1886. „ podophthalmus Miers. Brach. Chall. Rep., p. 249 (Torres Strait). 

 1894. „ telescopicus Ortmann. Zool. Jahrb. Abt. Syst., Bnd. 7 p. 744 



(Carolines, Ponapé). 

 1900. „ Verreauxi Alcock. Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, v. 69, prt. 2 p. 377 



(Andamans and Mergui archipelago). 

 1903. „ verreauxi Borradaile. Fauna Maldive etc., v. 1, prt. 4 p. 433 



(Maldive archipelago). 



1906. „ Verreauxi Nobili. Ann. Sc. nat., sér. 9, Zool., t. 4 p. 317 (Red Sea, 



Perim and Obock). 



1907. „ telescopicus Stimpson. Smithson. Inst., Miscell. Coll., v. 49, p. 95 



(Loo-Choo-isles). 

 1910. „ verreauxi Rathbun. K. Dansk. Yid. Selsk. Ski*., 7. Raekke, v. 4 

 p. 322 f. 6 (Gulf of Siam). 



Most authors agree in uniting Souleyet's M. podophthalmus with the 

 Gelasimus telescopicus of Owen ; indeed, on comparing the original figures 

 of these authors, there is a great probability that the species are iden- 

 tical, the more so, because they were both collected at the Sandwich 

 islands. On the contrary, M. verreauxi is generally regarded to be dis- 

 tinct, though Milne-Edwards in 1852 already acknowledged the difficul- 

 ties of their discrimination. According to Milne-Edwards the chief diffe- 

 rence must be sought in the form of the lateral teeth which are flat 

 and depressed in his species, but spiniform in M. podophthalmus. Now 

 I have before me two adult female specimens of M. verreauxi from the 

 Red Sea (already examined by de Man) and I have only to repeat the 

 words of this author : „the three lateral teeth are sharp, a little de- 

 pressed and the first tooth is directed transversely outward, but not 

 forward", so that Milne-Edwards' figure is most likely wrong in the form 

 and disposition of the lateral teeth. If these specimens of our Museum 

 really belong to M. verreauxi, which is to me beyond doubt, M. telesco- 

 picus and M. podophthalmus must certainly go with it, for my specimens 

 agree in every detail exactly with the figures of Owen and Souleyet. ] ) 

 I have here figured one of de Man's specimens. 



This species differs in many respects from M. transversus. The most 

 conspicuous features are the length of the eye-stalks, projecting beyond the 

 sides of the carapace for nearly half their length, and the comparative 



1) In Souleyet's figure the last lateral tooth is very large, even projecting beyond the external 

 orbital angle, but I am much inclined to regard this as a mistake, as such a feature, so svidely 

 differing from all that has been observed in otber species of the genus, would not have failed to 

 have been detected by such a keen observer as Souleyet. 



