﻿100 A7nial6 of the SoutJt African Hhiscum. 



figui-e and brief description as any that I have had an oppor- 

 tunity of examining. Bate could not describe the peraeopods, 

 and on our specimen there were none to describe. The dorsal 

 teeth on the carapace and rostrum number 27, and there is a 

 little ventral tooth near the apex, just below the foremost of 

 the dorsal teeth. Bate says " the frontal margin has a well- 

 developed antennal tooth, but the fronto-lateral tooth appears 

 to be entirely absent." If by "fronto-lateral " he means the 

 tooth at the lower front corner, which I call the antero-lateral, 

 it is well marked in his figure and is found in the South 

 African specimen. The telson is narrow, and has only 4 pairs 

 of dorso-lateral spines, two of the pairs in unsymmetrical 

 arrangement ; the spines of the apex are for the most part 

 missing. The eyes are moderately large, dark red. The 

 stylocerite of the first antennae is broad, ending acutely, not 

 nearly reaching the apex of the first joint. In the second 

 antennae the setose distal border is broad, slightly convex, on 

 a level with the little apical tooth, the flagellum about 75 mm. 

 long. The mandible has a broad incisor process edged witli 

 six unequal teeth, the molar stout, the third joint of the palp 

 much the longest and broadest, with a fringe of long setae. 

 The palp of the first maxilla is slightly emarginate at the 

 apex, with a long seta at one corner, 4 short setae at the 

 other, and 3 subapical spines on the surface. In the second 

 maxilla the terminal plate is distally narrowed and tipped 

 with 5 setae. Attention may be called to the strong spine, 

 bent at the end, on the apex of the third maxillipeds. Caiman 

 in 1906 points out that Bate separated his Stochasvms cxilis 

 from Nematocarcinus through mistaking this spine for a sepa- 

 rate joint or "dactylos." Kemp in 1910 reduces N. cxilis to 

 the rank of a variety of N. cnsifcr (S. I. Smith). The figures 

 which Kemp gives point to a near alliance, but not, I think, 

 identity, between the forms cxilis and lyarvidcntainm. In the 

 second maxillipeds a further point arises for consideration. 

 In his figure Bate represents the second and third joints in 

 complete coalescence, probably by inadvertence, as usually in 

 this genus they are quite distinct, as shown in Smith's figure 

 of N. cnsifcr. Yet in the specimen here described the sepa- 

 ration is very incomplete, as shown in the figure. The first 

 pleopod of the male, in place of an inner branch, has a wide 

 membranaceous plate, with little hooks low down on the inner 

 margin, as though it were a retinaculum in coalescence with a 



