Aipheid Shrimp, IX — Banner and Banner 
95 
hastardi, the others are deeper but still shallow 
in relation to other species. In other words, the 
orbito-rostral area varies from an almost flat 
condition to a condition with shallow, ill-defined 
grooves. 
Ratio of antennular articles. In A. levius cuius 
Dana shows the antennular articles to be almost 
equal, de Man (1911) pictures the second 
article slightly longer than the first, and the third 
a little shorter than the first, with the second 
article less than 2 times as long as broad. The 
type specimen is reported by Coutiere 1898 
( text and fig. 1 ) to have the second antennular 
article 1.5 times as long as the first and twice 
as long as broad, with the third article slightly 
shorter than the first. A. hastardi (loc. cit., fig. 
la) has all the articles of the antennular peduncle 
almost the same length and the second article 
as long as broad. However, Coutiere in his 1905 
plates (pi. 85, figs. 44, 45) shows specimens of 
A. bouvieri and A. hastardi to be almost exactly 
the reverse of the differential proportions of his 
1898 figure. Obviously Coutiere himself did not 
put much reliance upon this criterion for the 
species. 
In our specimens the ratio of the lengths of 
the antennular articles range from 1: 1.1:1 to 
1: 1.5:1 and the length-breadth ratio of the 
second articles ranged from 1 to 1.5 times as 
long as broad. These figures seem to bridge the 
differences among the three species in question, 
especially in view of the confusion of Coutiere 
in the proportions of his species. 
Antennular squame and spine. A. levius cuius 
as figured by Dana (fig. 3a) had a narrow 
squame, with the external spine about half the 
length of the third antennular article. The outer 
margin was slightly curved. A. bouvieri is simi- 
lar. A. hastardi carries a slightly broader squame 
with a straight margin, and a spine which 
reaches only slightly beyond the end of the 
squame. The range of the relative proportions 
of the squame and spine in our specimens en- 
compasses the differences reported for the three 
species. 
Large cheliped. The chelae for the three 
species in question are without distinguishing 
characters and have similar length-breadth ra- 
tios. However, no writer has mentioned the 
slight spines that are almost always to be found 
on the inferior-internal margin of their meri, 
nor the blunt terminal tooth on this edge. These 
differences may be individual variation. 
Small cheliped. There are two minor differ- 
ences reported in the small cheliped. First, de 
Man ( 1911:412) describes a small spine above 
the movable dactylus which Coutiere does not 
mention for either A. bouvieri or A. hastardi. 
This tooth appears in all of these specimens. 
Second, in 1905, Coutiere described and figured 
a moderately well-developed setiferous crest on 
the dactylus of the males of A. bouvieri which 
he uses as a criterion to separate the species 
from A. hastardi, where it is lacking. Neither 
Dana nor de Man mentioned this character for 
A. levius cuius. In our series most specimens 
were without the crest, yet in two males a crest 
of poor development was found along the inner 
side of the movable dactylus. 
Third leg. The only other point of difference 
is the merus of the third leg. In 1905 Coutiere 
stated that the length-breadth ratio of the third 
leg of A. bouvieri is 3.5 and in A. hastardi, 4.5. 
Dana pictures the third leg merus of A. levius - 
cuius to be 3.5 times as long as broad, de Man’s 
sole specimen had a ratio of 5. The merus in 
our series ranges from 3.1 to 4.4 times as long 
as broad. 
It is apparent that the subtle differences sepa- 
rating A. levius cuius, A. bouvieri, and A. has- 
tardi are either within the range of variation 
found in the specimens of this collection, or rep- 
resents only slight extensions of the range. We 
have, therefore, placed the two latter species in 
synonymy. 
Three other species are related to this com- 
plex: A. bouvieri hululensis Coutiere (1905:908, 
pi. 85), A. coutieri de Man (1911:409, fig. 97), 
and A. ladronis Banner (1956:360, fig. 20). 
The description of A. bouvieri hululensis is 
so inadequate that without the re-examination 
of the type specimen, or, better, of a topotypic 
series, it is impossible to ascertain its true rela- 
tionship. While we believe that it may be 
found to be within the range of variation of 
A. levius cuius, yet on the basis of specimens de- 
scribed its rostrum appears to be specifically dis- 
tinct. Therefore, we suggest that this described 
form be retained under the name of A. hulu- 
lensis until additional specimens are examined. 
