So^lth African Crustacea. 459 



ijm_i>sus. The cai'apace of the single specimen, a male, measures 

 22 mm. in breadth by 18 mm. in length. The finely-granulated, 

 nearly straight frontal piece between the orbits is approximately half 

 the total breadth of the front. It has a small median notch. The 

 greatest breadth of the carapace is at the third antero-lateral tooth. 

 The succeeding tooth is much the smallest. The telson is triangular, 

 broader than long. The third maxillipeds, which stood far apart, 

 have the fourth joint broader than long, much shorter than the third, 

 and the sixth joint shorter than the fifth or the seventh. The 

 chelipeds are notable for the strikingly dentate carinae of the fourth 

 joint, to which allusion is made in the specific name, from the Greek 

 TroXuoSouf, many-toothed. The fingers, especially of the larger chela, 

 have the confronting margins denticulate so as to close pretty closely 

 together, both hands and fingers having various grooves and much 

 granular ornamentation. The ambulatory limbs are closely alike in 

 structure, except that the first and last are shorter than the two inter- 

 mediate pairs. In all the fourth joint has a single distal tooth, the 

 sixth has some short marginal spines and the seventh several marginal 

 groups of stiff setae. 



Locality. Umhlaugakulu River, N.W. by N., 7 miles ; depth 

 50 fathoms. A 851. 



TRIBE OXYSTOMATA. 

 (See these Annals, vol. 6, p. 333 ; 1910.) 



FAMILY LEUCOSIIDAE. 

 (See these Annals, vol. 6, p. 335 ; 1910.) 



GEN. EBALIA, Leach, 1817. 



(See references above, p. 337, and add- 

 1837. Ebalia, M. Edwards, Hist. Nat. Crust,, vol. '2, pi. 128. 

 1837. M. Edwards, Regne anim. Cuvier, explic. pi. '24.) 



In the plate just mentioned Milne Edwards well exhibits the 

 difference between the third maxillipeds of Ebalia and Philyra. 

 But he calls one species Ebalia brayerii, Leach, thus misspelling 

 E. bryerii, the name which Leach wrongfully substituted for the 

 species called by Montagu Cancer tiimefactus. There is an 

 obvious confusion in the numbering of Montagu's figures. This, 

 however, in no way justified Leach in supposing that Montagu had 



