studies oil marine Ostracods 



39 



below. C. Glaus wrote in 1876, p. 94, of this limb that it „seine fuBahnliche Form erhalten 

 hat". If by this statement C. Glaus meant that this limb had retained a number of primitive 

 characteristics, he has certainly committed a fundamental mistake. This limb is undoubtedly 



Fig. IV. — Tiie fifth limb; according to ..the first metliod of explanation". I. Poti/copr freijuens G. W. Mi lleh. 



2. Sarsiella ca/)s«/a .\. M. Norman. :>. Cypn'dina medilerranea O. Cost\, jiivenis; from heliinil. 'i. The same limb from 

 before. 5. Aslerope oblonga Grube. 6. Conchoccia. 1. Macrocypris. 8. Cytherella sordida G. W. Miller o- (F'?S- '• 



3, 4, 6 and 8 from G. W. Muller, 189'i; figs. 3, '» and 6 are somewhat modified. Figs. 2 and 5 from G. 0. Sars. I88T. 



no. 5 is somewhat modified. Fig. 7 is drawn by me from nature.) 



to be regarded as very much modified. This far-reaching modification and the total lack of 

 known transitional forms makes any attempt at homologization merely a caprice, at worst 

 obviously incorrect, at best unveritiable, 



