OCR Text |
Show 1900.] FROM THE FALKLAND ISLANDS. 535 divided lamellae; lastly that the fifth pair of legs end in an imperfect chela, with very short fingers, and having on it a well-developed rasp. The rasp of the legs of the fourth pair is sometimes broad, sometimes formed of a single row of scales, but the first case is much the more frequent. The branchial formula is that of Para-pagurus." The authors do not give the branchial formula of Para-pagurus, but probably accept Professor S. I. Smith's statement that there are eleven pairs of branchiae, " two each at the bases of the external maxillipeds and the three first pairs of cephalothoracic legs, and three at the bases of the fourth pair of thoracic legs,-as in Eupagurus bernhardus." The first generic character given by Henderson is, " Front with a distinct rostral projection." This is modified by Thomson, who writes, " Front usually slightly rostrate." The change is obviously expedient, since Henderson says of bis own Eu. rubricatus that the " frontal projections are scarcely indicated, the median being obtusely rounded;" Milne-Edwards and Bouvier make a similar remark in regard to their Eu.stimpsoni ; and of Eu. edwarclsi Filhol, Thomson declares that the front is " not at all produced on the median line." Thomson also omits the character that the basal scales of the ocular peduncles are " separated by a wide interval;" and this in fact seems little applicable to Dana's Eu. novce-zealandice, while the two French authors just mentioned say of their Eu. smithii, that the ophthalmic scales are separated by a trifling interval (" intervalle mediocre " ). Eecently Miss Eathbun (Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. xxii. p. 302, 1900) has re-transferred Eupagurus Brandt to Pagurus Fabricius 1, and has given the name Petrochirus Stimpson to Pagurus as more commonly accepted. For this change there may be some subtle or simple explanation, but it is not supplied by the learned authoress, and without further discussion such an innovation should scarcely be accepted. If it be essential (as it may or may not be) to rescue the name Pagurus for one of the species originally assigned to it by Fabricius, it would be more correct and less confusing to sacrifice to it Dana's Aniculus, allowing Dana's own Pagurus to fall under Stimpson's Petrochirus, as Miss Eathbun proposes, but retaining Brandt's Eupagurus, with its numerous species, undisturbed. EUPAGURUS COMPTUS (White). 1847. Pagurus comptus, White, Pr. Zool. Soc. vol. xv. p. 122. 1848. Pagunis comptus, White, Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 2, vol. i. p. 224. 1858. Eupagurus comptus, Stimpson, Pr. Ac. Philad. p. 237 (Prodromus, p. 75). 1871. Pagurus forceps*!, Cunningham, Tr. Linn. Soc. Lond. vol. xxvii. p. 495. 1 So also S. J. Holmes (California Stalk-eyed Crustacea, p. 132, 1900) relying on J. E. Benedict (Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 6, vol. xviii. p. 99, 1896), who relies on Latreille's Consid. gen. Crust, p. 421, 1810-a broken reed, as I have elsewhere ventured to maintain (Natural Science, vol. xii. no. 74, p. 239, 1898). |