146 
NOTES ON SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DECAPOD CRUSTACEA. 
PART |. 
By W. Н. BAKER. 
[Read July 5, 1904.] 
PLADDS XXVIL ro XXXI. 
ln presenting a first paper of a series of studies of South 
Australian Decapoda—a department of our natural history 
that has heretofore been much neglected—I wish to acknow- 
ledge the kind assistance of the President of the Royal 
Society of South Australia, who has allowed me the use of 
the specimens from his dredging excursions; Professor Stir- 
ling, F.R.S., and Mr. Zietz, F.L.S., of the Adelaide Mu- 
seum; also of Mr. S. W. Fulton, of Melbourne, who is 
studying the same branch, and whose help I much appre- 
ciate; and also of Mr. G. M. Thomson, F.L.S., of Dunedin, 
who has been good enough to look through the pages and 
make some necessary corrections. 
In the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, London, for 
1863, appear descriptions and figures of a group of shrimps 
from South Australian waters, by the late Mr. Spence Bate; 
these were dredged, he says, in about four fathoms, in St. 
Vincent Gulf by Mr. Angas, and were forwarded by him to 
the British Museum. The first mentioned is a remarkably 
beautifully coloured species, Angasia pavonina, which Mr. 
Angas himself has figured and coloured, and Mr. Bate states 
that the genus Angasia was instituted by Mr. White, of the 
British Museum, to receive it. 
Since this record I am able to find mention of the follow- 
ing species which have been referred to the same genus, 
viz. : — 
A. lanceolata, Stimpson, from Hongkong. 
A. carolinensis, Kingsley, from the east coast of the 
United States. 
A. Stimpsom, Henderson, from the Gui? of Martaban. 
To these I wish now to add four species from our coast 
which are more differentiated by their external contour than 
by the details of their structure. 
The Rev. T. R. Stebbing, in his “History of Recent Crus- 
tacea,” remarks at page 233 that “little agreement exists 
as to the precise classification of some of the genera of the 
family Hippolytidæ”—to which Angasia belongs; and Mr. 
Bate, in his “Macrura of the Challenger,” sets out the genera 
with which he is there engaged as chiefly differentiated by 
the condition of the mandibles and the number of joints into 
which the carpus of the second pair of legs is divided. 
