Order: Ostracoda. 



For synonymy, see G. W. MOller, 1912, p. 1. 



Diagnosis and description: — Cf. G. W. IMl'ller, 1912, pp. 1 — 4. 



Historical: — C. voN LiNNE was the first to denominate scientifically a form belonging Lmne. 



to this group of animals, and although still earlier investigators, even the Nestors of microscopy, 

 SWAMMERDAM and Leeuwenhoek, had already been occupied to some extent with the study 

 of Entomostraca — and in this could of course scarcely avoid coming across some species belonging 

 to the group in question — yet this master of science was, at least if we are to judge from 

 the results to be seen in the literature, the first to make an attempt, even though a gropin^ 

 one, at a closer investigation and description of an s t r a c o d. — 0. F. MOl.LER states 

 in 1772 that H. Baker in his work ,,M i c r o s c o p e made easy", 1743, had already 

 mentioned an Ostracod; this statement is, however, due to a mistake. 



In his ,,F a u n a S u e c i c a", 1746, LiNNE gives on p. 344 a species called: ..Monocuhis 

 antennis capillaceis multiplicibus, testa bivalvi'', with, one must admit, a very superficial de- 

 scription, and this form, certainly a Cyprid, occurs again in the author's ,,.Sy sterna 

 N a t u r a e", 10th ed. 1758, p. 635 and in ,,F a u n a S u e c i c a" of 1761, p. 498, under the 

 name of Monoculus conchaceus. In ,,S y s t e m a N a t u r a e", 1758, are also given two other 

 Ostracod species; these also presumably C y p r i d s, Monoculus lenticidaris and M. telemus, 

 which are also only superficially described. 



Even in the later part of the 18th century we come across a number of works which Amhors of the later 

 mention, among other things, forms belonging to Ostracoda; examples are H. Baker, 1753, part of the isih 

 L. JOBLOT, 1754, M. F. LedermUller, 1760, G. de RIVILLE, 1760, N. PODA, 1761, E. L. 

 Geoffrov, 1762, 0. F. MOller, 1772, 1776, 1785, C. de Geer, 1778, J. F. G.MELIN, 1788, 

 and B. E. MANUEL, 1792. — IMost of these comparatively numerous works, however, did little 

 ro nothing to increase the knowledge of this group of animals. Only 0. F. 3ICLLER's two last 

 works, especiallv „E n t o m o s t r a c a s e u I n s e c t a T e s t a c e a", 1785, an extensive 

 work for his time, indicate a real step forward. In the last-named work ML'LLER gave two 

 genera, Cypris and Cythere, the former with eleven species living in fresh water, the latter with 

 five marine species. By this classification the fovmdation may be said to be laid for the great 



rentiinj. 



