lected Brachyura for several years, particularly from the east coast of the South Island. The rest of the material consists of the collections of the Canterbury Museum, including amongst other miscellaneous material a set of dried exhibit specimens named by Hutton. The whole of our collections, including some type specimens, has now been deposited in the Canterbury Museum.

It will be seen that the material available includes collections from all parts of the New Zealand region except the Kermadec Islands, ^* and contains dredged as well as intertidal specimens. It is therefore fairly representative of the New Zealand Brachyurous fauna. But no collection is ever sufficiently complete, and we have, for example, not felt justified in excluding the doubtful species from the list because they are not represented in our collections. A comparison of our findings on such genera as, for example, Cyclograpsus and Helice will show the necessity for cautiousness in this direction; but the doubtful species in Hutton's “black list” (see below) may be regarded as having been given their last chance in the present paper, and if they are not recognised in the other collections in the country, particularly those from deeper water and less familiar districts, they may henceforth be rejected without compunction.

A brief survey of previous work will serve to illustrate not only the progress of our knowledge, but also the reasons for the doubt that exists concerning so many species. Among the earliest writers who contributed reports on Brachyura, including those of New Zealand, are Milne-Edwards, who described the collections of Quoy and Gaimard; Dana, who accompanied the United States Exploring Expedition; Jacquinot and Lucas, who described the Brachyura of the so-called “Voyage au Pôle Sud”; and Heller, the naturalist of the “Novara” expedition. These reports, written for old-world carcinologists rather than for New Zealand workers, were additions to the European literature rather than monographs on the New Zealand crab-fauna, and local workers were greatly aided by the publication in 1876 of Miers' Catalogue of the New Zealand Crustacea.” This is the only attempt that has yet been made to gather together what is known of the New Zealand Brachyura, or of the local Crustacea in general. It contained definitions of all the species, genera, and higher groups known or thought to occur in this country; and it added a number of species to the list, including some which were new to science—the latter being first described in the Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 4, vol. 17, 1876, and figured in the Catalogue. The absence of figures of previously-known species detracted from the completeness of the work to some extent, but a much more serious defect was the inclusion of a number of species which do not occur in our waters. The latter was no fault of Miers, who (as Hutton remarked) had to record all the species reported to have come from New Zealand; but the fault lay with those who had mixed the labels in so many cases, and who had previously published incorrect records. The worst offender in the latter respect was Heller, whose locality-records are unreliable.

This source of confusion was not expressly dealt with by Filhol in his report on the Mission de l'Ile Campbell; but this author based

his work on excellent material and so did not add to the confusion, though he listed all the species in the Catalogue without criticism. Filhol's material consisted of his personal collections and of a few specimens presented by local naturalists, and of those in the Paris Museum which had already been described by Milne-Edwards. A. fine atlas of plates went far towards remedying what was felt to be a drawback in Miers' Catalogue.

A further source of confusion, too obvious to cause much real difficulty, has been the tendency of a few writers to identify our species with those of Europe, depending on the briefest descriptions.

In a short paper published in 1882 in the N.Z. Journal of Science, p. 263, Hutton drew attention to the unreliable nature of many of these records. He gave a list of species which should certainly be excluded, another of species which should probably also be excluded, and a third list of those whose occurrence in this country had not been verified. These conclusions were corroborated in a brief note published in the same volume by the Hon. G. M. Thomson (l.c., p. 333), who has paid much attention to these Crustacea. In the report on the Crustacea collected during the expedition of H.M.S. “Alert” Miers repeated several of these records, but was evidently unaware, of the criticism of his Catalogue by local workers. These records have also been repeated by Ortmann (1894) and several other workers abroad. A few of the species which Hutton regarded as doubtful have been found again, but his list appears to have been remarkably well chosen; in very few cases, for example, does the list drawn up by G. M. Thomson and C. Chilton for the Index Faunae Novae Zealandiae, published many years later, differ from these earlier views. In the list below we have not included the species which Hutton and Thomson wished to exclude, except where there is further evidence; but we have retained most of the doubtful ones as still doubtful. In the synonymy of the various species we have not quoted the Index Faunae N.Z. and Hutton's critical lists, but when they contain an opinion which is still of weight we have drawn attention to them, in our notes.

It need hardly be stated that the “Challenger” reports contain a valuable addition to our knowledge. The collections of Brachyura were entrusted to Miers, whose previous knowledge of our Brachyurous fauna was of some advantage; nevertheless, as only a few Crustacea were collected in New Zealand the report was hardly of such outstanding importance to New Zealand workers as the reports on other groups of animals less confined to the littoral. Subsequent descriptive work has been confined almost entirely to the writings of the senior author, as mentioned above; but special mention should be made of a paper on the “Biology of Otago Harbour” by the Hon. G. M. Thomson (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 45), who has devoted a section of the paper to notes on the occurrence and habits of the Brachyura of the coasts of Otago.

In the present survey, our aim has been to state the problems rather than to attempt to solve them. In no case has a decision been given without a full statement of the grounds on which it is based, and the extent to which, in our opinion, it may be relied upon. The way is thus left clear for further revision. Certain genera have not

been touched upon, namely, Paramithrax, of which the Canterbury Museum contains an extensive series; Pilunnus, a difficult genus of which the collections contain some forms new to science or at least to New Zealand; and the smaller crabs of the genera Pinnotheres, Halicarcinus, Hymenicus, Hymenosoma, Elamena, and Ebalia.

The Canterbury, Museum library contains some papers formerly belonging to Hutton, and annotated by him; most of his comments have already been published in the critical paper mentioned above, but we have quoted and duly acknowledged several others below. It may be noted that in his copy of his critical paper, he has corrected the word “typical” (p. 264, line 9) to “tropical,” which was the word originally intended.

In our lists of localities below, it is to be understood that some of the personal names after the records refer to collectors whose specimens we have seen and identified, and some to authors from whom the record is quoted; the latter is the case when the author in question has contributed a paper which is quoted in the synonymy of the species in question. When it is not expressly stated that records on the authority of Hutton are based on his MSS., it is to be understood that he has left labelled specimens in the Canterbury Museum. Specimens which we have personally collected are indicated by our respective initials only, and the full name of the senior author refers to a previously published record.

As regards the evidence afforded by the Brachyura of the geographical relationships of the New Zealand region, our knowledge of the group is still much too imperfect for very precise deductions to be drawn. There are about eleven species which are known only from the original description, and which are in some cases open to doubt; if they are included among the endemic element, the latter constitutes two-thirds of the species whose validity and occurrence in New Zealand are beyond reasonable doubt, and if they are excluded, the proportion is still one-half. This is a high proportion in a group with such means of dispersal in the adult and larval stages. As is natural, the list of names of foreign species which have been recorded, though in all probability incorrectly recorded, from New Zealand, includes a high proportion of Australian and Indo-Pacific forms; but nevertheless there still remains, after these have been subtracted, a strong Australian element—which, in fact, is stronger than any other element except the endemic. Some of these species occur, as far as is known, only in Australia and New Zealand (Nectocarcinus integrifrons, Ommatocarcinus macgillivrayi, Gyclograpsus lavauxi, Helice crassa, not to mention some doubtful examples); others are found also in the Kermadecs and other islands to the north of New Zealand (Ozius truncatus); and others again are confined to these islands and New Zealand, and do not occur in Australia (Heterozius rotundifrons, Cyclograpsus whitei). It is not easy to discover the source of these species, but geographically they appear to form a natural group whereby the New Zealand fauna is linked with the Australian.

There is also a more or less cosmopolitan element (Ovalipes bipustulatus, Planes minutus) whose members have special means of dispersal, and cannot be employed in any argument concerning origins and relationships.