New Crustacea from the Swan River Estuary. 
47 
-carpus is cup-shaped and under-rides the propod. The ischium 
and basis are slightly expanded, and the dactyl is smoothly curved. 
Pereiopod 2, subchelate, palm linear, propod smaller than in pereio- 
pod 1, and armed with a row of six spines. “Tooth” of the 
dactyl marked off by a sudden narrowing on the palmer side. From 
the shelf so produced a number of setae spring. Carpus and merus are very 
much as in pereiopod 1. Pereiopod 3, similar to 2. Pereiopod 4, with 
dactyl bent at an angle to the propod, but scarcely subchelif orm ; propod 
.armed with two spines, one distal, the other at mid-length. The terminal 
jiortion of the carpus bears two spines. The carpus is relatively larger than 
in the three anterior limbs. Merus with only a slight distal expansion and 
the carpus does not under-ride the propod. Pereiopods 5 and 6 similar to 
pereiopod 4, except that the carpus is armed with three spines. Pereiopod 
7 absent. 
Pleopod 1 operculiform, covering the other pleopods. The outer ramus 
is enlarged, distal and fringed with long setae except on the inner margin; 
the inner ramus narrow, fringed distallv on both sides. Both rami loaded 
with dark pigment. In Pleopod, 2-5 inner ramus not quite as long as the 
outer, which is wider. Endopod simple without setae, distal portion bul- 
bous. Exopod broad with fringing setae. 
Uropod basis with a few terminal setae ; the lower edge produced down- 
wards in a keel. Exopod three times as long as broad, inner edge fringed 
with a few long setae, with still fewer inserted on the outer edge. Endopod 
less than twice as long as broad, inner margin almost straight, outer margin 
with long fine setae. 
Telson : Broadly ovate-lanceolate, setiferous at the rounded apex, other- 
wise bare. Convexly arched dorsally. 
Tail fan: Ends of uropodal endopods coincide with the end of the telson. 
Exopod arches dorsally over the telson. 
Male. 
Length: same range as female. Similar to the female except for absence 
of oostegites and the possession on the second pleopod of a male stylet, 
which is an elongated rod with a simple rounded apex. 
Discussion. 
Barnard (1925) lists twenty-four genera of the Anthuridac and gives 
the specific distinctions of all species known to him. Since his paper eight 
further species have been described, one of which is ascribed to a new 
genus, Notanthura Monod (1927). The genus here described does not fit 
in to any of the genera described by Barnard, nor to Notanthura. Bar- 
nard pointed out that the important generic features were the arrangement 
of the tail fan, the shape of the telson and the form of the maxillipeds. 
Apart from the differences in these three features Crurantlmra differs from 
all except Hyssura Norman and Stebbing 1886, Colanthura Richardson 1905 
and Cruregens Chilton 1881 in the absence of the seventh pereiopod. How- 
ever it is easily distinguished from the first of these genera. Hyssura has 
multiarticulate flagella on both antennae and the exopocls of the uropods do 
not arch over the telson, the maxilliped is five-segmented, the pleopod is 
