36 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. VII, January, 1953 
with equal ease. In 1898 and 1905 Coutiere 
redescribed the species on the basis of speci- 
mens from the Indian Ocean. Coutiere evi- 
dently did not establish a neotype. 
Unfortunately the species Coutiere de- 
scribes has not been found in the Hawaiian 
Islands. This confirms de Man’s doubts about 
the validity of redescribing a species from 
such a distant locality (1911: 202-203). Cou- 
tiUe’s specimens do not, then, meet the one 
definite characteristic given in the original de- 
scription: "Habitat: Hawaiian Islands." 
Moreover, the original description states that 
the tooth at the base of the dactylus of the 
large chela is missing, but CoutiUe’s plates 
clearly show his specimens to have this tooth 
or projection. Einally, the statement in the 
original description that the dactyli of the 
third and fourth legs had their "secondary 
claws ventral" would imply that the ventral 
claw is not as heavy as the distal or superior 
claw, a condition contrary to that found in 
Coutite’s specimens. For these reasons Cou- 
tiere’s description of Synalpheus hiungukulatus 
must be discarded and a neotype selected 
from the fauna of the Hawaiian Islands. 
The name hiunguiculaUis has priority over 
all names of synalpheids from the Hawaiian 
area, and Sampson’s description can be inter- 
preted to apply to any local species with 
greater or less precision. For example, it could 
be applied to 5. paraneomeris Coutiere with 
ease. However, if it were applied to that spe- 
cies, the entire literature would be thrown into 
an even greater snarl. To avoid such further 
confusion, the name has been applied to this, 
the third most common synalpheid in these 
waters, a species that has not been named pre- 
viously. It agrees with the few characteristics 
given in the original description, especially 
with the portions discussed above. The only 
difference is in the indefinite statement of the 
original description: "... having front short- 
toothed . . .’’. It would appear that this de- 
scription possibly was of a different species, 
but one cannot tell what Stimpson meant by 
"short." Perhaps, having the rostrum reach- 
ing only to the end of the first antennular ar- 
ticle was short in Stimpson’s opinion. More- 
over, when more specimens are examined, 
this characteristic will perhaps be found to be 
variable, as it is in 5. paraneomeris. 
This species is most closely related to S. al- 
batrossi CoutiUe of those known from the Ha- 
waiian Islands. They can be separated by the 
characteristics shown in the following tabu- 
lation: 
S. hiungukulatus 
Rostral base narrower than 
base of orbital teeth 
Third antennular article as 
long as second antennu- 
lar article 
Stylocerite reaching to end 
of second antennular ar- 
ticle 
Basicerite without upper 
spine, lower spine reach- 
ing end of first antennu- 
lar article 
Scaphocerite longer than 
antennular peduncle 
Large chela without tooth 
over dactylar articulation 
or on superior margin of 
merus 
Dactylus of third legs with 
lower unguis almost par- 
allel to upper unguis 
Telson with posterior mar- 
gin strongly convex 
5. alhatrossi 
Rostral base broader 
than base of orbital 
teeth 
Third antennular article 
shorter than second 
antennular article 
Stylocerite reaching 
slightly beyond end of 
first antennular article 
Basicerite with acute up- 
per spine, lower spine 
0.5 length of first an- 
tennular article 
Scaphocerite shorter than 
antennular peduncle 
Large chela with tooth 
over dactylar articula- 
tion and small tooth 
on distal end of su- 
perior margin of merus 
Dactylus of third legs 
with upper and lower 
ungui divergent 
Telson with posterior 
margin "very little 
convex’’ (Coutiere, 
1909) 
In addition, there are differences in propor- 
tions of several of the appendages, especially 
in the merus of the large cheliped and of the 
small chela. Of these characteristics, probably 
the most important are the relative lengths of 
the stylocerites and the presence or absence of 
the upper spine of the basicerite. It will be 
noted that the characteristics of S. alhatrossi in 
the tabulation are derived from Coutiere’s 
original description, and that the first, second, 
and eighth points do not apply well to the 
specimens placed in 5. alhatrossi in this paper. 
It is necessary to assign a new name to Cou- 
tiere’s species. I propose, therefore, Synalpheus 
coutierei nom. nov. to replace Synalpheus hiun- 
