GREGARIOUS CRUSTACEA FROM CEYLON. 
9 
GYATHURA , Norman and Stebbing. 
1886. Gyathura, Norman and Stebbing, Trans. Zool. Soe. 
London, vol. XII., pt. 4, p. 121. 
1900. Gyatinura , Stebbing, Willey’s Zoological Results, pt. 5, 
pp. 619, 620. 
1901. Gyathurci , H. Richardson, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 
XXIII., p. 508. 
The relations of this genus to other genera in the same family 
are discussed in “ Willey’s Zoological Results,” but the opinion 
there expressed, that in “ the maxillipeds the epipod-bearing first 
joint always seems to be indistinguishably coalesced with the 
wall of the head,” must be modified at least so far as regards the 
species now to be described. A genus Golanthura , in which the 
fifth perseopods are wanting, as in Hyssura and Gruregens , was 
established by Miss Richardson in 1902. 
GYATHURA PUSILLA , n. sp. 
PI. 6b. 
This species agrees in so many points with Gyathura carinata 
(Kroyer) that the description of that species by Kroyer, Harger, 
and others, when compared with the figures here given and the 
points of difference about to be mentioned, will cover all that is 
essential to be said. 
In the present species no eyes could be detected. The sixth 
segment of the perseon, instead of being scarcely longer than the 
seventh, is as a rule very decidedly longer, and the longest males 
and the females laden with young do not exceed a length of 
7*5 mm., whereas the length of Gyathura carinata reaches from 
15 to 20 mm. 
The distinct first joint of the maxillipeds might have been 
added as a specific character, but although Kroyer, Schiodte, 
Harger (in his text), and Norman and Stebbing all appear to be 
agreed as to the disappearance of this joint from G . carinata, 
Harger, in figuring the maxillipeds of that species (under the 
name Antliura polita, Stimpson), quite distinctly represents the 
missing joint. That so careful a writer as Harger should have 
left the discrepancy between his text and figure unexplained is 
difficult to understand, but the question remains open whether 
the connection between this joint and the large second one may 
not be open to individual variation. It is perhaps more probable 
that the joint, when missing, is in coalescence with the second 
joint than with the wall of the head. 
C 
8(3)04 
