Mr. R. I. Pocock on Ebalia nux, Milne-Edwards. 101 
surface strongly dentate ; brachium subcostate behind, 
smooth, but marked with setiferous pores ; smooth beneath 
and furnished with many setiferous pores along the hinder 
margin ; anterior surface finely granular and sparsely denti- 
culate ; manus narrow, equalling in width the superior ridge 
of the u hand-back,” with lightly convex but distinctly den- 
tate and hairy inner margin, scarcely produced posteriorly ; 
the upper surface ornamented with a reticulated pattern formed 
by the anastomosis of low smooth ridges ; above the superior 
ridge of the u hand-back ” the surface is subcostate ; inferior 
surface mostly smooth, coarsely but sparsely granular in 
front, with two smooth keels ; dactyli granular, costate and 
hairy ; the movable dactylus slightly longer than the hand. 
Legs . — The femora of the fourth pair feebly granular in 
front ; for the rest the legs are almost entirely smooth and not 
costate ; coxce , especially of the anterior two pairs, punctured, 
Pectines short, projecting as far as the end of the fourth 
coxae ; furnished with fourteen teeth. 
Measurements in millimetres. — Total length 100*5 ; length 
of cephalothorax 15, width 15*5 ; length of tail 49, of first 
segment 6*5, of second 7*5, of third 8*2, of fourth 9*5, of fifth 
12, of vesicle 6*5, of aculeus 4*5; width of first caudal seg- 
ment 6*5, of fifth 4*5, of vesicle 4*5 ; length of humerus 13*7 ; 
brachium, length 14*5, width 5*3 ; width of hand 11 ; length 
of u hand-back” 10*5, of movable finger 16*5. 
A single male specimen without special locality. 
In the reticulated sculpturing of the hands this species 
resembles 8c. indicus (Linn.); but it is of much more slender 
build, with longer palpi, thinner hands, and longer tail. In 
the form of its palpi it approaches the male of 8c. fulvipes ; 
but in this species the upperside of the hand is coarsely granu- 
lar and subcostate. 
X. — On Ebalia nux, Milne-Edwards , By R. I. Pocock. 
My attention has just been called to a passage on p. 316 of 
the last number of the Journal of the Marine Biological 
Association/ in which I regret to see that Canon Norman 
has taken occasion to charge me by implication with lack of 
courtesy for not giving what he considers due acknowledg- 
ment to the name he applied to the above Crustacean; and since 
such an accusation is likely to carry weight from such a source 
and to leave a wrong impression on the minds of readers not 
