
Ommatocarcinus macgillivrayi White.
Ommatocarcinus macgillivrayi White, Appendix to Stanley's Narrative of H.M.S. Rattlesnake, vol. 2, p. 393, Pl. 5, Fig. 1. 1852.
— Milne-Edwards, Ann. Sci. Nat., ser. 3, Zool., vol. 18, p. 163. 1852.
— Haswell, Cat. Crust. Austr., p. 90. 1882.
— Filhol, Mission de l'Ile Campbell, p. 385. 1885.
— Miers, Challenger Reports, Zool., vol. 17, Crust., p. 247. 1886.
— Stebbing, Hist. Recent Crust., p. 92. 1893.
— Chilton, Rec. Cant. Mus., vol. 1, No. 3, p. 292. 1911.
— Thomson, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 45, p. 237. 1913.
Ommatocarcinus huttoni Filhol, l.c., p. 384, Pl. 43, Figs. 1, 2. 1885.
The senior author (l.c., p. 292) has already united the names O. macgillivrayi and O. huttoni, and our present series (12 specimens,

large and small, of both sexes) confirm the conclusion that there is only the one species in New Zealand, though there is still room for doubt. In identifying our species with the Australian O. macgillivrayi there is also room for doubt, but not having had Australian specimens for comparison we follow previous authors on this point. The usage of the names has been as follows:—White described O. macgillivrayi from a single male collected in Australia; Filhol described O. huttoni from a single female collected in New Zealand, and gave reasons for considering the two distinct. Miers had a young male and two small eggbearing females from New Zealand; being unacquainted with Filhol's work, he did not mention O. huttoni, and assigned his specimens to O. macgillivrayi, but mentioned differences which, he remarked, “will perhaps be found to be of specific importance.” The presumption is that although Miers did not found a new species for his three small specimens, he would readily have referred them to O. kuttoni if he had known of that species. Our young males are quite similar to his, and young and older females connect these with what Filhol called O. huttoni; and we consider that the older males in our collection, and those reported by previous writers, are the same species again. We follow precedent in identifying that species with the Australian O. macgillivrayi; although we have had no specimens of the latter, we note the following points in which New Zealand males differ from White's short description:— The chelipeds may be five times as long as the carapace (White states 2½ times); the chelipeds have no sign of a spine at the middle; the wrist is not toothed on the inside; and the inner surface of the hand is very broadly rounded and scarcely ridged.
The dimensions of a large male are as follows:—
| Breadth of carapace | 17 mm. |
| Length of carapace | 7 mm. |
| Length of merus | 5 mm. |
| Length of hand | 7 mm. |
| Total length of chelipeds | 14 mm. |
On the small males, the merus has a spine on each of the two upper edges, and the lower has three or four sharp spines.
Locality.—N.Z. (Filhol).
Queen Charlotte Sound, 10 fathoms (Miers).
10 miles from Cloudy Bay, 19 fathoms; Whale Rock, Bay of Islands, 15 fathoms (Capt. Bollons).
Stewart Island (W. Traill).
“Nora Niven” Station 19 (Chiltgon).
Bare Island, near C. Kidnappers, 37 fathoms (C.C.).
Off Banks' Peninsula, 20 fathoms (E.W.B.).
“Occasionally taken in trawlers, and found in the stomachs of fishes, from outside Otago Heads.” (Thomson).
Distribution.—Australia.
