158 TAOF: SKOGSRERCl 



According to G. W. MOlleu\s view, the following is the correct classification: 



Trilnis T. Mi/ndocnpa, comjirising the families Cypridinidae, Halocypridae, and Polycopidae 

 II. Podocopa, .. .. ,. Cypridae, Darwinulidae, Nesideulae, Cyiheridae, 



and CythereJJidae. 



C Clalis, on the other hanrl. divides the Ostracod group directly into families. 

 According to this author the Halo c y p r i d s form a transitional group between the C y p r i- 

 d i n i d s and the families grouped under Podocopa. 



Which of these methods of classification is preferable? Is any of them to be 

 regarded as completely right? 



I have tried to answer these questions in the second chapter of the general part of this 

 work, entitled: , .Contributions to our knowledge of the natural system of the Ostracod s." 

 As is seen in p. 101 the result of my study has lieen to show that it does not seem quite 

 convenient to adopt any of these three methods of classification (piite unaltered. It appeared 

 to me to be necessary to divide G. O. SaRS' sectio Myodocopa into two main groups equivalent 

 to Podocopa, Cladocopa and Platycopa, but apart from this Sai^S's view has been accepted. 

 The main classification of the Ostracod group that is employed in this work is as follows: 



Sub-order I. Cypridini formes, comprising all (' y p r i d i n i d s 

 II. Hal(>cyprilort)ie.s, ., ., Hal ocyp rids 



., ,. III. Polycopiformes, ,, ,, Polyeopids 



,, ,, IV. Cypriformes, „ „ C y p r i d s, D a r w i n u 1 i d s, N e s i d e i d s, 



and (' y t h e r i d s 

 ,. ,, V. fy/herellifonties. ,, „ C y t h e r e 1 1 i d s. 



In what order ought these groups to be placed? In other words, is it possible to 

 decide which groups are most primitive? 



As is shown in the above-mentioned chapter in the general part of this work, the 

 facts of the matter are presumably that each group is in a number of respects more primi- 

 tive than the others, in other respects more developed. It is difficult to decide with certainty 

 which of these groups has the greatest number of primitive characteristics. Under these 

 circumstances it seems to me most convenient to adopt the arrangement used by G. \V. MtJLLER. 



