Alpheid Shrimp, X: Fiji, Tonga, Samoa — Banner and Banner 
157 
that in his the ratio is 10:1. However, if the 
figure stated by de Man is correct then his 
specimen must have had an extremely attenuated 
telson; it is possible that his ratio may have 
been in error. 
The identity of A. trispinosus needs to be 
established by the description of a neotype. 
Stimpson’s description, while more full than 
those of many later workers, is so ambiguous 
that the identity of his species is questionable. 
His type came from Port Jackson, Sidney, Aus- 
tralia; yet Coutiere (evidently with only At- 
lantic specimens) published many figures of 
what he believed to be this species. Because 
Coutiere’s drawings and descriptions of the 
Atlantic specimens did not agree perfectly with 
a single broken, and possibly immature, Indo- 
nesian specimen, de Man did not use the name 
A. trispinosus. It is not known whether our 
specimen from Samoa, de Man’s from Indonesia, 
Hale’s from Tasmania, and the specimens from 
the Atlantic are or are not the same species. 
On the basis of the distributional patterns 
common in the family, it is likely that the 
specimens described by Stimpson and Hale 
represent a temperate Pacific species, that this 
specimen from Samoa and the specimens of de 
Man from Indonesia are a tropical Pacific spe- 
cies, and finally that the specimens of Coutiere 
and Sollaud from the tropical and subtropical 
Atlantic represent a third species. Holthuis 
(1951:94) expressed similar doubts about the 
identity of the Atlantic species with the Pacific 
species, although he accepted Hale’s hesitant 
view that de Man’s and Stimpson’s specimens 
are of the same species. Obviously no certain 
identification can be made until many more 
complete specimens from the various parts of 
this supposed range are studied. 
Alpheopsis diabolus Banner 
Alpheopsis diabolis Banner, 1956. Pacific 
Sci. 10(3): 325, fig. 3- 
Alpheopsis diabolus Banner and Banner, 
1964. Pacific Sci. 18(1) :86. 
LOCALITY: Fiji: 1 specimen from BF 20. 
SYNALPHEUS Bate 
Synalpheus streptodactylus streptodactylus 
Coutiere 
Synalpheus neomeris streptodactylus 
Coutiere, 1905. Fauna and Geog. Maid, 
and Laccad. 2(4):870, pi. 70, fig. 1. 
Synalpheus streptodactylus de Man, 1911. 
Siboga Exped. 39a 1 (2) : 226, pi. 7, fig. 29- 
Synalpheus metaneomeris streptodactylus 
Coutiere, 1921. Linn. Soc. Zool., Journ. 
17(4) :414. 
localities: Tonga: 1 specimen from BT 1; 
1, BT 6; 7, BT 7; 2, BT 9- Samoa: 1 specimen 
from BAS 10; 27, BBS 27. 
DISCUSSION: Coutiere in 1905 described a 
form of Synalpheus to which he gave the vari- 
etal name Synalpheus neomerus streptodactylus; 
this he distinguished primarily by differences 
in the dactyli of the pereiopods. In 1911 de 
Man reported that he had examined the types 
of Coutiere’s variety as well as a group of re- 
lated specimens collected by the Siboga Expedi- 
tion. He found that Coutiere’s variety was spe- 
cifically separate from S. neomeris on the basis 
of a series of characteristics which included 
the proportions of the antennular peduncles, 
the chelae, the walking legs, and the telson; 
for his new species he retained the name S. 
streptodactylus. 
However, Coutiere (1921:414), in reporting 
additional specimens, accepted de Man’s specific 
separation but stated that there were actually 
two varieties involved — those with the dactylus 
of the walking leg as he originally described 
it, and those with a heavier ventral unguis. Be- 
cause he accepted the concept that both of these 
varieties were of a species separate from S. 
neomeris, he proposed to give the name S. meta- 
neomeris for the species, retaining the name 
S. m. streptodactylus only for those with the 
modified dactylus. 
This action by Coutiere is a violation of the 
rules of nomenclature. When a named variety 
or subspecies is raised to specific rank it must 
continue to bear the name originally assigned; 
if the new species be divided into subspecies, 
the subspecies that contains the types for the 
species bears as a subspecific name the dupli- 
cated specific name, and the differing subspecies 
bears a new name. Therefore the correct name 
of this species is S. streptodactylus Coutiere; the 
subspecies originally described by Coutiere must 
be S. streptodactylus streptodactylus, and the 
