﻿10 



PROCEEDINGS OF THE 



[May, 1854 



not improbable that his P. galathina may have proceeded from our Southern 

 coast, although its country is said to be unknown. Say has applied the name 

 to one from our coast. Leach and Desmarest have given descriptions of that 

 one which apply to our present species, as also does Bosc's own description; 

 and lastly the name has not been applied to any species proceeding from 

 other localities; I therefore now apply the name P. galathina to the present 

 species, and think the synonymy ought to stand as I have presented it. 



In 1837, Milne Edwards described, in the work already quoted, his P. ru- 

 gosa. This description of this species, whose origin is also said, singularly 

 enough, to be unknown, applies in every particular to our species; he also 

 notices the spine on the carapax a little distance behind the external angle of 

 the eye ; the only deviation of importance, if deviation it can be called, is that 

 " the front is almost as prominent laterally as in the middle." I consider there- 

 fore this species of M. Edwards as the same as ours. Possibly the specimens 

 he described were the identical ones of Bosc, deposited in the collection of 

 the Museum in Paris. M. Edwards, although he mentions Bosc's work (in 

 terms of perhaps just censure,) in his sketch of the History of Carcinology, 

 in the introduction to his work, and quotes him under Pagurus vittatus (tome 

 ii., p. 237) makes no reference to him whatever under P or cellana, not even 

 when quoting Say's P. galathina. So much for Say's omission, in not re- 

 ferring to Bosc, when he used the name of his species. 



After stating the conclusions drawn from published notes and descriptions 

 which may be presumed to be accessible to all Naturalists, it is proper to 

 make mention of some facts opposed to these conclusions, especially as these 

 facts are at present accessible to few. Since writing, in 1850, the description 

 of P. sexpinosa, above referred to, Dr. A. A. Gould, of Boston, kindly placed 

 in my hands a small packet of Say's manuscript notes on Crustacea and In- 

 sects, chiefly of the United States, whose examination I hoped would enable 

 me to decide what species he referred to under the name P. galathina. Three 

 species of Porcellana are mentioned ; the first is called P. galathina, but the 

 incomplete description does not, where points sufficiently characteristic are 

 seized, apply to our present species, nor to any other that I know on our 

 coast. The description of his second species (without specific name) seems 

 to apply to our P. armata. His third is mentioned thus, in a sheet detached 

 from the others: '• The large Porcellana I found on the coast of Florida is 

 perhaps the same as the species in Mr. L'Herminier's collection, and which I 

 have taken to be P. galathina ; the general colour is reddish, brown, etc." 

 and then follows a description, chiefly of coloration, which applies generally 

 to our P. ocellaia and not to P. galathina. These notes certainly cast some 

 doubt on the determination of Say's P. galathina, but I think I am justified 

 in saying that they do not require the alteration ot the synonomy as above 

 presented. 



The only closely allied species is the P. Boscii of Savigny (Exped. d V 

 Egypte, Crust, phi, jig. 2) which is quite distinct. 



