200 PROCEEDINGS: BOSTON SOCIETY NATURAL HISTORY. 
in accord with Agassiz’s earlier observations ('75) on the same 
genus, when his rather obscure note is critically examined. And 
they ought to make us cautious in assuming as at all characteristic 
of Pagurid ontogeny either the existence of more than one stage in 
the glaucothoe phase or growth during that period. 
However, the multiform and possibly polyphyletic nature of the 
Pagurid group must not be overlooked. So that no general conclu¬ 
sion can safely be based on the ontogeny of a single genus. Espe¬ 
cially will this be true of the Glaucothoes. Despite Bouvier’s 
conclusions, there seems reason to question whether they can be 
the young of forms closely related to those genera for which glauco- 
thoe-stage larvae have been described, viz.: Eupagurus (Rathke, ’42 ; 
Bate, ’68; Faxon, ’82; Sars, ’89), Spiropagurus (Sars, ’89), and 
Diogenes (Czerniavsky, ’84). The mouth parts of Glaucothoe as 
figured by Milne-Edwards appear more mature in character than 
the corresponding appendages in the glaucothoe phases of Eupag¬ 
urus anullipes , longicarpus , or our variety of bernhardus. For the 
equivalent stage of the European E. bernhardus we have figures of 
the maxillipeds alone (Rathke, ’42), but they agree in all respects 
with the same appendages in the New England species. The mouth 
parts of the other described glaucothoe larvae have not been studied. 
The differences in the mandibular palp, in the first maxilla, and 
anterior maxilliped are especially noticeable in this connection, for 
in Eupagurus these parts have retrogressed from their condition in 
the zoeae and are without setae or at most only provided with rudi¬ 
mentary setae, while in Glaucothoe they are at least setose. 
The absence of ophthalmic scales also is in contrast to the con¬ 
ditions existing in the larvae studied by Sars (’89) and Czerniavsky 
(’84) and probably those examined by Rathke. With respect to 
his larvae Rathke (’40, ’42) only makes the indefinite statement that 
the eyes had the same form as those of the adult, but he seems to 
have worked upon the same species as did Sars. Of Bate’s larva 
(’68) nothing is known with respect to these structures, and the 
young figured by Faxon (’82) do not have the ophthalmic scales. 
This last is almost unquestionably attributable to oversight. The 
figure was drawn from a rough sketch in which there was no intent 
to show more than the general form. Moreover, if the figure 
is correct with respect to the scales, it must represent the glauco¬ 
thoe phase of some other genus than Eupagurus. Four species of 
