Hawaiian Crangonidae — Banner 
9 
ing over eyes. Antennular base cylindrical, 
with basal article not longer than sum of other 
two; scaphocerite rarely longer than pedun- 
cles. Mandible always bipartite, with palpus 
of 2 articles. Distal article of first maxilla bi- 
furcate at its extremity. Epipodites of first and 
second maxillipeds always undivided. Chela 
of first thoracic leg predominant, always large. 
(In the Hawaiian species the chelae are usual- 
ly asymmetrically developed.) Carpus of che- 
liped short, cup-shaped or hemispherical. Sec- 
ond legs chelate, weakly developed. (The 
multiarticulate carpus in Hawaiian species is 
always composed of four to five articles.) Fol- 
lowing legs short, compressed, with spinous 
propodi (in Hawaiian species the dactyli are 
either simple or biunguiculate) . Propodus of 
the fifth leg with more or less well-developed 
"brush” of bristles placed in transverse- 
oblique rows. Abdomen usually with grad- 
ual curve, without any pronounced bending 
at third segment; sixth segment broad and 
short; size and shape of pleura showing sexual 
dimorphism. Pleopods of usual form, show- 
ing only slight sexual dimorphism. The bran- 
chial formula always includes five pleuro- 
branchs. (Description adapted from Coutiere, 
1899.) 
Of the 18 (?) previously known genera of 
the family Crangonidae, only 4 are represented 
in the fauna of the Hawaiian Archipelago. In 
addition, one new genus has been described; 
this genus, however, is not endemic to the 
Hawaiian Islands, as it includes one species 
from the southwest Pacific which de Man 
tentatively placed in the genus Alpheopsis Cou- 
tiere. The great majority of the species in Ha- 
waii are members of the genus Crangon Weber 
as they are in all other investigated regions of 
the Indo-Pacific. 
The generic name Crangon and the family 
name Crangonidae replaced the widely used 
names Alpheus and Alpheidae as the result of 
the work of Rathbun in 1904. At that time she 
published the results of an examination of a 
paper by Weber, published in 1795, in which 
he used the name Crangon for species called 
Alpheus by Fabricius in 1798. Her interpreta- 
tion of this, according to the International 
Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, made it 
necessary to change the genus previously 
known as Alpheus Fabricius to Crangon Weber 
and the genus known as Crangon Fabricius to 
Crago Famarck. She presented the case to the 
International Commission on Zoological No- 
menclature, and they confirmed her views in 
Opinion 17: "Weber’s Nomenclator Entomologl- 
cus 1793 complies with the requirements of 
Article 25, hence the genera in question are to 
be accepted. ...” Apstein in 1915 proposed 
that the name Alpheus be a nomen conservandum^ 
but the proposal was rejected (although not 
specifically for Alpheus versus Crangon^ by the 
International Commission’s Opinion 74. The 
whole controversy is reviewed by Hult (1938). 
As a result of these rulings most American 
and Australian workers are using the name 
Crangon instead of Alpheus, whereas most Eu- 
ropean workers are still using the name Al- 
pheus. As this paper goes to press there is an 
appeal to the International Commission for a 
suspension of the rules to permit the re-estab- 
lishment of the name Alpheus. 
The position of the family Crangonidae dif- 
fers but slightly in the various modern sys- 
tems of classification of the lower decapods. 
However, because the names and definitions 
applied to the subsidiary classifications differ 
with the various schemes, that of Balss (1927) 
has been selected arbitrarily for use in this pa- 
per. Balss followed, with only minor changes, 
the scheme of classification earlier devised by 
Borradaile. In it the Crangonidae are placed 
in the suborder Natantia, the division Eucyph- 
idae (which seems to be the equivalent of the 
tribe Caridea of others), and the tribe Palae- 
moniida (equivalent to the superfamily of the 
same name used by other workers) . Except for 
differences in names as pointed out above, all 
present workers appear to be in accord on the 
classification of the Crangonidae to this point. 
Within the tribe Palaemoniida there is a 
difference of opinion as to the relative position 
