studies on maiinf Oslracods 157 



equivalent to the sub-groups of the y p r i d i n i d s. A. ScOTT, 1905, and A. M. NORMAX, 1905, 

 also employ the same classification. 



G. W. Mt'LLER, however, even in his later works, among others that of 1912, which to 

 some extent may be said to form a conclusion to an epoch of the historv of Ostracod 

 investigation, uses unaltered the fundamental classification that lie worked out in 1894. In 

 this he is only followed by T. R. R. S'l'l'^BBING^ 1910. 



Since then the system has been enlarged by a number of families being divided into a 

 greater or less number of sub-families. For this development T must refer the reader to the 

 historical resumes given under the sub-orders. 



At a very early date it was surmised that the s t r a c o d s would prove to be one Hi-irription nf ,i,r 

 of the groups richest in species within the Entomostraca and time has not disproved this. Thus •-7"■'■''•■-•■ 



CI. W. MtlLLER in his synoptic work 1912 records no less than 1719 described recent 

 species. To judge, however, from the latest works and from my own experiences in working 

 out the present treatise, this figure seems by no means to be the limit. At the present time 

 there seems to be on the earth an Ostracod kingdom enormously rich in forms. Under 

 these circumstances it is, of course, absolutely necessary to take the utmost care in introducing 

 new forms into the literature, otherwise this will soon be quite unwieldy. This seems, however, 

 not to have been recognised by most of the investigators who have been occupied with the 

 systematization of the s t r a c o d s. This may i^erhaps best be illustrated bv G. W. MCLler's 

 statement (1912) that only 921 out of the 1719 species recorded by him could be considered as 

 ,, certain"; in reality the proportion between ,, certain" and ,, uncertain" species is probably 

 even more discouraging. This lack of care applies especially to the works of G. S. Brai)"^', one 

 of the most productive authors in this departement. It must be admitted that most, almost 

 all, the descriptions of species that this industrious author has published are so incomplete 

 and uncertain that they are quite insufficient for full certainty of identification. Instead of 

 advancing our knowledge of the s t r a c o d s most of this author's work has onlv rendered 

 the study of this group of animals more difficult. But even the most eminent of our Ostracod 

 investigators — G. W. Mt'LLER not excepted, this applies especially to some of tliis author's 

 later works — can scarcely be acquitted of the charge of superficial descriptions. One must 

 admit, unfortunately, that the method of description of species withiji this group is still at 

 rather a low level. 



Remarks: — As appears from the preceding historical survey, there are, with regard y<'iiirai sysirm. 

 to the main lines for the systematic classification of the Ostracod group, three separate 

 and mutually opposed views present in the literature of the subject, namely those of G.O. S.VRS. 

 G. W. MOller and C. C'LAUS. 



According to G. 0. Sars this group is to be divided in the following wa\-: 



Sectio I. Podocofa, comprising the families Cyprklae, Darwimdidae, Ne.sideidae. and ( 'f/l/ien'dae 



,, II. Myodocopa, .. .. •• Vypridinidae and Halocypridae 



., III. Clculocopa, ,, .. family Polycopidae 



IV. Platycupa ,, .. Cytherdlidne. 



