OCR Text |
Show 1900.] FROM THE FALKLAND ISLANDS. 531 Gen. PARALOMIS White. 1856. Paralomis, White, Pr. Zool. Soc. Lond. vol. xxiv. p. 134. 1858. Paralomis, Stimpson, Pr. Ac. Philad. p. 231 (Prodromus, p. 69). 1871. Lithodes, Cunningham, Tr. Linn. Soc. Lond. vol. xxvii. p. 494. 1881. Paralomis, Miers, Pr. Zool. Soc. Lond. p. 71. 1888. Paralomis, Henderson, 'Challenger' Auomura, Eeports, vol. xxvii. p. 44. 1892. Paralomis, Ortmann, Zool. Jahrb. vol. vi. p. 321. 1893. Paralomis, Stebbing, Hist. Crust., Internat. Sci. Ser. vol. Ixxiv. p. 154. 1894. Echinocerus, Benedict, Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. xvii. p. 484. 1895. Paralomis, Bouvier, Ann. Sci. Nat. ser. 7, vol. xviii. p. 185. 1895. Paralomis, Faxon, M e m . Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard Coll. vol. xviii. p. 44 (Crust. ' Albatross '). 1896. Paralomis, Bouvier, Ann. Sci. Nat. ser. 8, vol. i. p. 25. 1899. Paralomis, Alcock & Anderson, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 7, vol. iii. p. 15. This genus was established by White for the species named Lithodes granulosa by Jacquinot in the Atlas of the 'Voy. au Pole Sud.' It is strange that White should establish a genus, without anv serious attempt at definition, on a figure which he pronouuces to" be " extremely bad." He does not explain how under the circumstances he was able to identify the specimen " in the British Museum" with the species in question. His observations that the species " has tbe beak scarcely projecting at all beyond the extraorbital angle," that " the carapace and upper parts of its legs are thickly invested, as in some of the Canceridce, with close strawberry- surfaced granules, closely pressed together," and that it is a small species, " more allied to Lomis," are all the help he gives for distinguishing his new genus from Lithodes, not to speak of his own genera Echidnocerus and Petalocerus. Two or three years later Stimpson gave distinguishing characters for ten genera of Lithodidae, in two groups. The second, with the body depressed, comprised Lomis of Milne-Edwards with Brandt's Dermaturus and Hapalogasier. Of these genera, Bouvier in 1894 gives reasons for removing Lomis entirely from the Lithodinea and founding upon it a separate section, the Lomis-inea (answ-ering to the Lomina suggested by Brandt in 1851) ; but the other two he retains with Placetron Schalfeew, 1892, as constituting one division of the Lithodinea, the Hapalogastrica of Brandt. Benedict's CEdignathus is made a synonym of Dermaturus and his Lepeopus of Placetron, de Haan's Lomis dentata falling into the genus Hapalogasier as arranged by Stimpson. The latter author's first group, with body convex, comprised Lithodes, Echidnocerus, Paralomis, Rhinolithodes, Acantholithus, Phgllolithodes, Cryptolithodes, the first established by Latreille, the next two by White, Acantholithus by Stimpson, and the remainder by Brandt, |