1914.] NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 27 



Cyclops fuscus Schmeil, '92, pp. 123-127, 136-140, pi. I, figs. 1-76; pi. IV, 



fig. 16. 

 Cyclops fuscus Jurine, Marsh, '95, pp. 16, 17, pi. VI, figs. 5, 7, and 11. 

 Cyclops signatus var. coroiiatus Herrick, Brewer, '98, pp. 129, 130. 

 Cyclops fuscus Jurine, Lilljeborg, '01, pi. Ill, figs. 12-15. 

 Cyclops signatus var. corouatus Herrick, Byrnes, '06, pp. 193-200, pi. VII, 



figs. 1-6, pi. VIII, figs. 1-3. 

 Cyclops signatus var. corouatus Byrnes, '09, pp. 9, 10. 



Synonymy and Dislribution. — In his discussion of the differences 

 between this species and the closely related Cyclops albidus Jurine, 

 Dr. Schmeil has proven not only that we are dealing with two 

 distinct species, but also that Jurine was the first investigator to 

 distinguish these two. It is only right, then, that Jurine's names 

 should stand and that Koch's Cyclops signatus give way to (1) C. 

 Juscus and (2) C. albidus Jurine. In spite of Schmeil's careful proof, 

 several of our American investigators have clung to Herrick's varieties 

 ienuicornis and coronatus of C. signatus Koch. C. D. Marsh accepted 

 Schmeil's proof in his paper of '95. Even after the publication of 

 Porbes' paper of '97, in which he abandoned Herrick's terms for 

 "those of Jurine, Brewer in '98 and Miss Byrnes in '06 and again in 

 '09, have reverted to Herrick's varietal names. 



In speaking of the "two varieties," coronatus and tenuicornis, 

 IBrewer states that "the real differences between them are confined 

 to the seventeenth- joint of the antenna and the caudal setse." He 

 then continues: "The difference between their first cephalothoracic 

 segments and their furcse is hardly distinguishable." On p. 136 of 

 Schmeil's monograph there is a table of "the most important dis- 

 tinguishing characters" of the two species in question. Of the 

 eleven "important characters" mentioned, Brewer has noted four, 

 and no mention is made of such important features as the receptacu- 

 lum seminis and the sense-club (present or absent) on the twelfth 

 antennal segment. 



It is quite evident that Miss Byrnes has overlooked the more 

 important distinguishing differences between the two species. In 

 her recent paper. The Fresh Water Cyclops of Long Island ('09), 

 in spite of the carefully tabulated proofs of Schmeil in Germany 

 and the acceptance of his views by both Marsh ('95) and Forbes 

 ('97), Miss Byrnes has clung to the ob.solete name of C. signatus 

 Koch and attempts to revive Herrick's varietal name coronatus and 

 Richard's(?) annulicornis. In a foot-note- (on p. 9) she states: 

 "I have used the more recent name C. signatus var. coronatus instead 

 of the older name C. fuscus Jurine, because it expresses more clearly 

 the evidently close relationship that exists between C. signatus var. 



