28 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF [Jan.^ 



coronatus and the allied form C. signatus var. annulicornis, called 

 C. albidus by Jurine. " 



It is quite evident that Miss Byrnes has not had Dr. Schmeil's 

 exhaustive work on the Cyclopidce of Germany at hand. He has 

 shown conclusively (129, 130 and 137-140) that by right of priority 

 Jurine's names should stand. No matter how "close" the "relation- 

 ship" between the two forms in question, Miss Byrnes is hardly 

 justified in using "the more recent" name. In her description of 

 Cyclops signatus var. coronatus (p. 9) she states that this form has 

 "serrations in the hyaline plate on the two distal segments of the 

 antennae" and, furthermore, that "the notches in the hyaline plate 

 of the antennae form gradually and may or may not be present. 

 In fig. 4 they are seen on the last segment only. " The first statement 

 I am unable to verify, nor do any of the investigators mention a 

 serration of the "two distal segments of the antennse." They are 

 always present in the hyaline plate of the distal segment in adult 

 forms. In the immature forms the plate on the distal segment of 

 the antennse is often exactly as in C. albidus Jurine. The serrations 

 do not "form gradually." I have several times observed a young 

 specimen of C. fuscus just before the last ecdysis. In such cases 

 there was a finely serrated hyaline plate on the last segment, but the 

 coarsely serrated plate of the adult form could b& distinctly observed 

 below the transparent chitin folded flat down along the segment. 

 In every case the serrations of the coming plate were complete. 

 In her conclusion Miss Byrnes states that "there are wide ranges 

 of variability in the reduced seta on the inner ramus of the fourth 

 foot of annulicornis and in the hyaline plate of the antennae of both 

 varieties — in short, in the most important difi^erential characters 

 of the two varieties." It is not at all surprising that Miss Byrnes 

 considers the "two varieties" so closely related when we find that 

 half of (to her) the "most important differential characters" are 

 concerned with a single seta on the inner ramus of the fourth foot. 

 In her description of this species, as well as all the others descrilied 

 by her, Miss Byrnes obviously neither considers the receptaciduin 

 seminis a most important feature, nor does she mention the presence 

 of sense-club or hair in a single species. 



Miss Byrnes has added very little to the evidence of the close rela- 

 tion that may exist between these two species. She gives but one- 

 quarter of the observations in Herrick's "diagnosis," which is 

 incomplete even in its full form, and then draws her conclusion 

 mainly from her own notes on the difference in the single seta of th(> 



