1922.] S . KEMP : Notes on Crustacea Decapoda.

II 7

sion t h a t has prevailed, it m a y be mentioned t h a t Balss has recently

redescribed the t y p e species of Periclimenes as a new form of
Urocaris and t h a t a single species has been described b y Schenkel,
Nobili, L e n z and Miss R a t h b u n — a l l writers of experience—under
the names Ancylocaris brevicarpalis, Palaemonella aberrans, Harpi-
lius latirostris and Periclimenes hermitensis respectively.
Borradaile's recent system of classification does little to re-
move the sources of error. The primary divisions in his synoptic
k e y to the genera depend almost wholly upon habit of body. This
character appears to me to possess little generic importance and,
inasmuch as the subfamily comprises species with every imaginable
gradation of form, between the most slender and the stoutest, it
is frequently quite impossible to decide on the section to which any
particular form should be allocated.
I h a v e attempted in this paper to devise a more workable
arrangement. In so doing I h a v e been led t o discard Urocaris,
Ancylocaris and Periclimenaeus as distinct genera and to merge
all the species belonging to them, together w i t h those of Borra-
daile's subgenera Falciger, Cristiger, Corniger and Hamiger under the
single name Periclimenes, The large assemblage of species thus
constituted is divided into three subgenera, Periclimenes, Pericli-
menaeus and Ancylocaris, which together comprise the m a j o r i t y of
k n o w n species of the subfamily. E x c e p t for Harpiliopsis, which is
no doubt identical with Harpilius, the remaining genera retain
their r a n k ; several, however, are inadequately described and one
or t w o may even prove not t o belong to the subfamily.
Whether the new grouping in the Periclimenes section demon-
strates the real affinities of the species better t h a n the old one is
a question on which it is difficult to express a decided opinion. It
is clear from the manner in which t h e y are combined t h a t m a n y
of the characters which are used in the distinction of species must
necessarily be convergent in origin and it is impossible to be certain
t h a t this is not also the case with some of those to which I h a v e at-
tached generic or subgeneric significance. T h e new grouping, how-
ever, removes some of the obvious anomalies t h a t h a v e hitherto
existed and will, I believe, be found convenient in practice. In
proposing this new scheme of classification it will be understood
t h a t I disagree with much t h a t Borradaile has said regarding the
phylogeny of the group and t h a t m y views on the w a y in which the
different genera h a v e originated differ v e r y widely from those
which he has illustrated in the form of a phylogenetic tree.
T h e Pontoniinae are for the most p a r t Indo-Pacific in distri-
bution and the subfamily is almost exclusively marine. The only
exceptions to the latter statement are Periclimenes indicus, P.
demani and P. obscurus, which frequent lagoons of variable salinity
on the eastern side of the Indian Peninsula. The t w o former
species are capable of enduring extreme alterations in salinity and
both have been found in water t h a t is quite fresh as well as in
pure sea-water. Periclimenes obscurus has been f o u n d b o t h in
the sea and in brackish water. T h e members of the subfamily