This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 Excerpt: ...and posterior angles, the latter less advanced than 1xstocular spine; intermediate spine long. Basal antennal joint with lateral margins very prominent, each terminating in a slender spine, otherwise unarmed. Chelipeds of male nearly one and one-half times total length of carapace, stout; crests of arm and wrist ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 Excerpt: ...and posterior angles, the latter less advanced than 1xstocular spine; intermediate spine long. Basal antennal joint with lateral margins very prominent, each terminating in a slender spine, otherwise unarmed. Chelipeds of male nearly one and one-half times total length of carapace, stout; crests of arm and wrist irregularly dentate, a spine at distal end of arm; chelipeds of female very slender and only as long as postrostral portion of carapace. Legs decreasing rapidly in length, first pair in male as long as cheliped less half of fingers, in female exceeding cheliped; meral, carpal, and propodal joints spinulous above, the meral joints each with three spines at distal end. Dimensions.--Male, station 3859, length to median sinus 12.5, to tip of horns 16.4, width without spines 9.3 mm. Distribution.--South coast of Molokai Island, 134 to 130 fathoms, station 3854; Pailolo Channel, 127 to 148 fathoms, stations 3856, 3859 (type locality), and 388B. Cat. No. of type, 29699. In the arrangement of the dorsal spines this species resembles C. spatnliffr (Haswell), but in the latter the spines of the posterior half are spatuliform, the supraocular eave is more projecting, the horns more spreading. Named for Mr. E. L. Goldsborough, one of the Fish Commission collectors on the Hawaiian expedition of 1901. With regard to Clilofinoidex Haswell, 1880, vs. Aranthophrys A. Milne Edwards, 1865, both Alcock (Jour. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, LXIV, 1895, 241) and Miers (Challenger Brachyura, 52, 1886) have overlooked the fact that Miers himself designated the type of Acanthophrys (Jour. Linn. Soc. London, XIV, 1879, 657) as.1. eristimanus A. Milne Edwards; the type therefore can not be changed and the important point yet to be determined is, not whether '. lomirostris Huswell (the t...
Read Less