ox CRUSTACEA BROUGHT BY DR WILLEY FROM THE SOl^TH SEAS. 619 



Schibdte in the Naturliistorisk Tidsskrift, Sen 3, vol. 10, p. 211, 187.5. Schiodte also 

 calls attention to the value of Kroyer's description and figures of Anthvra carinata 

 (Naturh. Tidsskr., Ser. 2, vol. 2, p. 402, and Gaimard's Voy. en Scand., Crust, pi. 27, 

 fig. .3 a — o). This imperfect but under the circumstances meritorious account was over- 

 looked by Bate and Westwood. They, like Krriyer, were hampered by want of 

 material, and were reduced to describe the mouth-organs not of Anthura but of an 

 essential!}' different genus which they named Paranthiira. The lettering of their figures, 

 the figures themselves, and the accounts relating to them, involve obscurities, some of 

 which are acknowledged by the authors, and inconsistencies which it is not so easy 

 to explain. Schiodte has taken great pains to unravel the tangle, but apparently he 

 was himself only acquainted with the genus Cyathura. to which Kriiyer's species has 

 been transferred by Norman and myself In the eleven genera that have been named 

 within this family, the species have so great a superficial resemblance that agi-ee- 

 ment in the character of the mouth-organs has no doubt been sometimes taken for 

 granted, and this the more readily because they are so small and so difficult to dissect. 



The paper published in the Transactions of the Zoological Society of London in 

 1886 was read to the Societ}'' in 1884 and had been in substance prepared several 

 years earlier. Consequently it omitted from its review of the Anthuridae certain 

 Australian and New Zealand genera which would otherwise have received notice. The 

 six genera accepted in that paper are divided between two well-marked sections. In 

 the first of these, to put the matter briefly, the mandibles and lower lip end obtusely, 

 in the second acutely. The first section contains the genera Anthura, Cyathura, 

 Anthelura, Hyssura; the second contains Paranthura and Calathura. The genus Ptilan- 

 thura, Harger, 1880, is regarded as a synonym of Anthura, but this is an opinion 

 which I can no longer support. 



In Anthura the female has five segments of the pleon coalesced into a single 

 segment, the mandibles have a three-jointed palp. In Ptilanthura the females have a 

 distinctly segmented pleon, the mandibles have a one-jointed palp. It is certainly 

 curious that Harger did not include the latter feature in his generic definition, but 

 he was a careful writer and had .several specimens at command, so that his definite 

 statement should scarcely be set aside on conjecture. In regard to the females he 

 expressly says that they are distinguished from young specimens of Anthura pulita 

 by the larger eyes and 'the more elongated and distinctly segmented pleon.' An- 

 thura polita, Stimpson, is in all probability the same as Cyathura carinata (Kroyer), 

 which agrees with Anthura very nearly as to the coalescence of pleon segments in 

 the female. Harger named the type species of his genus tenuis on the chance that 

 it inight prove to be identical with Paranthura tenuis, Sars, 1872, and Sars at one 

 time accepted the supposed identity, but has now withdrawn his species alike from 

 Paranthura and Ptilanthura, placing it in a new genus Leptauth ura, which belongs 

 to the second section of the fiimily, while Harger's genus belongs to the first. 



To the eight genera already named must be added Haliophasnia, Haswell, 1880, 

 and Eisothistos, Haswell, 1884, both from Australia, but there is no information about 

 the mouth-organs of either to show whether the existing sections of the family are 

 fitted to receive them. On the other hand the genus Cruregens, Chilton, 1882, from 



w. V. 82 



