EEPOET ON THE STOMATOPODA. 
69 
Measurements. 
In inches and 
decimals. 
In thousandths 
of total length. 
On middle line : — 
Eostrum, ........ 
•07 
91 
Carapace, ........ 
T7 
221 
Carapace, including rostrum, ..... 
■24 
312 
Prom posterior edge of carapace to posterior edge of third thoracic 
somite, ........ 
•042 
55 
Erom posterior edge of third to posterior edge of fourth thoracic 
somite, ........ 
From posterior edge of fourth to posterior edge of fifth thoracic somite, 
•043 
56 
•042 
55 
First abdominal somite, ...... 
•043 
56 
Second abdominal somite, ...... 
•043 
56 
Third abdominal somite, ...... 
•052 
68 
Fourth abdominal somite, ...... 
•060 
78 
Fifth abdominal somite, ...... 
•073 
95 
Sixth abdominal somite, ...... 
•057 
74 
Telson on middle line, . . • . 
•072 
94 
Length of hind body, ...... 
•527 
687 
Total length on middle line, .... 
•767 
999 
Greatest length of telson, ...... 
•10 
130 
Width of carapace between antero-lateral spines, 
•092 
120 
Width of carapace (greatest), ...... 
•115 
149 
Width of third thoracic somite, ..... 
•128 
165 
Width of first abdominal somite, ..... 
T25 
163 
Width of fifth abdominal somite, ..... 
•141 
184 
Size. — Length, inch. 
Remarks . — A comparison of this species with the descriptions of Gonodactylus folinii 
which are given by A. Milne-Edwards 1 and Miers 2 would at first sight seem to indicate 
that they are the same as this species, as there is a very close general resemblance, as 
well as an almost perfect agreement in size, and Milne-Edwards’ single specimen was 
obtained at St. Vincent, the place where the Challenger specimen was collected. 
Neither of these authors notices the bifurcation of the antero-lateral spines of the 
rostrum, the elongation of the carapace or the spines at its antero-lateral angles, but as 
these points might easily have been overlooked on account of the great minuteness of 
the specimens, I was at first inclined to believe that they are the same, but careful 
examination of Milne-Edwards’ figures brings out so many important points of difference 
that I am forced to conclude that there are at St. Vincent two closely related species of 
this minute type, or else that the figures which are given by Milne-Edwards are so 
inaccurate as to be of no value. Which of these alternatives is the true one can be 
decided only by renewed examination, and as our specimen differs very essentially from 
1 Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat., t. iv. p. 65. 2 Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 5, vol. v. p. 123. 
