Report on the zoological collections made in the Indo-Pacific Ocean ...

520 COr-LECTfONS FROM THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.DECAPODA.BRACHYURA.1. AcliseTis laevioculis. (Plate XLVI. fig. A.)I thus doubtfully designate a male specimen from the Seychelles,4-12 fms., which in many of its characters closely resembles A.lorina(Ad. & White*), from Mindanao and Borneo, but is distinguished bythe absence of the promiuent spines or tubercles on the gastric andcardiac regions of the carapace (which are here replaced by verysmall tubercles), the nearly terete eye-peduncles (which iu A. lorinaare armed with a spine or tubercle), and the much shorter ambulatorylegs, which are scarcely more than twice the length of thecarapace, and have the dactyli, even of the fifth pair, very littlefalcated, whereby this species may be at once distinguished fromA. crancliii and A. lacertosus. A. tuherculatus, Miers, has the carapacemuch less constricted behind the eyes, a prominent cardiac spine,&c. I should note that in specimens of A. lorina in the Museumcollection the spines of the carapace are much less prominent thanin the figure of Adams and White.2. Camposcia retusa, Latr.Two females of this common Oriental species were obtained onthe beach between tide-marks at Mozambi(]ue (No. 224), a localitywhence Dr. Hilgendorf has already recorded it, I have alreadyreferred to its distribution on p. 189.3. Huenia pacifica, Miers.A male from the Seychelles, 4-12 fms. (No. 194), closely resemblesthe type specimen of this species from the Eijis in the characteristicallylong and slender rostrum and in all other characters. Theoccurrence of H. pucijica at the Seychelles suggests the possibilityof this form being identical with H. c/randidieri, A. M.-Edwards,from Zanzibar, founded upon a female example only f. I have,however, already noted the distinctions which exist between M.-Edwards's figures of H. c/randidieri and the female from the Eijisin the Museum collection which 1 refer to H. jmcijica. With thelimited material available for comparison, the two forms certainlycannot be united ; but perhaps the examination of a sufiicient serieswould demonstrate the necessity of regarding both as mere varietiesof the long-known H. protens, with which they may be linked throughthe form designated by AVhite H. heraldica, which has been alreadycited in the first part of this <strong>Report</strong> as synonymous with M. proteus.* Zool.' Samaraug,' Crust, p. 3, pi. ii. fig. 2 (184S).t Ann. Soc. Entam. France, ser. 4, v. p. 143, pi. iv. fig. 2 (1865).