(i20 ox CRUSTACEA BROUGHT BY DR WILLEY FROM THE SOUTH SEAS. 



New Zealand, was in 1894 made the subject of a very ample discussion by its 

 author, and this shows that it belongs to the second section by almost all its oral 

 characters. But there is this to be remarked in the mandibles that, though they 

 run out to a sharp point distally, as in the other genera of the second section, 

 this point is here not freely outdrawn, but flanked by 'a thin chitinous plate with 

 rounded margin,' coiresponding to the serrate blade which flanks the apical tooth or 

 teeth of the mandibles in the first section. In this genus the mandibles are entirely 

 without palp, a fact which lends additional probability to the one-jointed palp of 

 Harger's Ptilanthura. The mandibular palp is indeed very variable in this family, 

 its third joint being large in Cyathura and Calathura, but very small in Anthura 

 and Leptanthura. But of all the oral appendages those which give the most trouble 

 are the second maxillae. For Cyathiira they are clearly figured by Schiodte, in close 

 connexion with the first pair. For Cruregens Chilton figures them in attachment to 

 the lower lip. In establishing the genus Calathura Norman and myself say nothing 

 about them, and recently Sars has expressed the opinion that they are wanting both 

 in Calathura and Leptanthura. Bonnier figures them for his Calathura affinis, but 

 that species by the first antennae and by the maxillipeds would rather belong to 

 Paranthura. In the latter genus Dohm, describing Paranthura nigro-punctata (Lucas), 

 gives a figure explained as ' coalesced second maxillae (?),' which no doubt, as Dr 

 Chilton has already suggested, represents the pair- of second maxillae with the deeply 

 cleft lower lip between them. Now, also, the dissection of a specimen of Calathura 

 hrachiata, from East Finmark, given me by Canon Norman, shows that they are 

 present in that species, just as in the species of Paranthura. Should they prove 

 to be present also in Leptanthura, Bonnier's affinis might find its proper place in 

 that genus, with which it agrees in the mandibular palp, the uropods, and most 

 other characters. Bormier, however, does not describe the position of the fifth joint 

 in the hind peraeopods, which is characteristic in Leptanthura. 



From the descriptions available it appears that the maxillipeds are no less variable 

 than other oral parts, except that the epipod-bearing first joint always seems to be 

 indistinguishably coalesced with the wall of the head. Omitting this joint from the 

 calculation, the maxillipeds form only one joint and a rudiment in Cruregens, two 

 joints in Anthura and Ptilantliura, two and a rudiment in Paranthura, three in 

 Leptanthura and Cyathura, four in Calathura and Apanthura, five in Anthelura and 

 Hyssura. 



The uropods are a subject of controversy. Chilton and Dohru consider the lower 

 branch to be one-jointed, not two-jointed, as various authors have stated it to be. 

 Dr Chilton argues that it would be quite exceptional for the inner branch to be 

 two-jointed. At the same time he points out that Gerstaecker held the upper branch 

 to be the inner. If Gerstaecker is right in that interpretation, Dr Chilton's objection 

 would so far disappear. The question would remain whether in the outer branch we 

 are to consider that a first joint is consolidated with the peduncle. This seems at 

 least not improbable. 



