184 Annals of the South African Museum. 
teeth on the telson: there are 3-4 teeth on each lobe instead of 2 as in 
the other forms. 
Now specimens from Table Bay, which I have examined, agree with 
the descriptions of Paramoera austrina but show according to age 
from 2-8 apical teeth on the lobes of the telson ; in one Jarge ¢ there 
are even 11 teeth on each lobe. Chilton does not give the length of 
Kis specimens, but I cannot doubt that they are exactly similar to my 
Table Bay specimens. 
Moreover, if the multidentate telson be compared with Bate’s figure 
of Atylus capensis (presumably copied from Dana) the conclusion is 
unavoidable that we are dealing with the same form. In other respects 
the specimens conform to Bate’s (Dana’s) somewhat meagre descrip- 
tion. Differences in the relative lengths of upper and lower antennae 
are unimportant. 
Stebbing’s A. assimilis is a typical young specimen of P. capensis ; 
the length of the rami of 3rd uropod increase with age and become 
more serrate. Similarly I think A. magellanica is a young form of 
this species. 
The question remains: Is P. austrina (Bate) and its synonyms as 
given by Stebbing and Chilton (with the exception of A. assimilis) to 
be included under P. capensis (Dana)? Dana’s name of course has 
the priority. The series of Cape specimens shows that the number of 
telsonic teeth increases with age from 2 to 8 (or even more) ; females 
begin to bear ova when only 6 mm. long and when the telson has only 
3 or 4 teeth. On the other hand, P. austrina (Bate), P. australis 
Miers and Stebbingia gregaria Pfetter have all been described from 
specimens about 17 mm. in length and still having only bidentate 
telsonic lobes. 
This seems to me to warrant the separation, if not perhaps as a 
species, then as a well-marked variety, of Bate’s austrina from the 
typical capensis of Dana. With austrina go the other synonyms as 
suggested by Stebbing and Chilton, with the exception of Haswell’s 
megalophthalma. This I would separate as another variety charac- 
terised by a strong rostrum (}—* length of 1st joint of Ist antenna), 
and rounded, entire telsonic apices. 
Walker’s P. magellanica (Nat. Antarct. Exp. vol. 3, p. 33, pl. 12, fig. 
20, 1907) does not appear to be specifically the same, in my opinion. 
For the sake of comparison I give a detailed description of the Cape 
specimens. 
Body smooth, pleon segments 1-8 not scabrous. Rostrum repre- 
sented only by a small point. Eyes large, oval-oblong, nearly meeting 
on the top of the head, larger in 2 than ¢. Side-plates 1-4 rounded 
