172 TAGE SKOGSBRRG 



Cypridinid genus Crossophorus, pointed out above as primitive), the slight differentiation and 

 size of the penis and its shape like that of a biramous limb (what is the state of affairs in 

 Crossophorus with regard to this is not known). 



From what has been stated above it may be clear that there are not adequate reason to 

 justify an assumption that Philomedinae is more closely related to the Asteropidae than are 

 other forms belonging to the sub-order Cypridiniformes. On the other hand, it is, of course, 

 by no means impossible that it is so. It does not seem to me impossible that those of 

 G. W. Muller's characters which were placed in the third category above and at least a few 

 of the characters put forward by me above really indicate a closer relationship between the 

 two first- mentioned groups. The fact that there is a possibility that these characters are more 

 or less primitive causes us, however, to use them only with the greatest caution as evidence 

 in this matter. 



The absurdity of G. W. MUller's assumption that the family Asteropidae has arisen 

 from Fhilomedes-like forms in which the reduction of the maxilla and fifth limb appeared 

 in both males and females ought in point of fact to be so obvious to every one who knows 

 these forms intimately that a refutation in addition to that which has been given above seems 

 scarcely to be necessary. 

 Hciati'juship On the other hand, according to G. W. MOllek, loc. cit. p. 224, there were characters 



teiween .ypri nvi ^^ -^^ observed that seem to indicate a closer relation between Cypridina and Asterope; 



and Asterope. •'' '^ 



these characters were: 



The first antenna: In Philomedes this has six joints, in Asterope and Cypridina 

 seven; Asterope is, however, strongly differentiated from Cypridina by the type of the 

 joints ,,wahrend in Bezug auf Schlankheit wieder Philomedes in der Mitte steht". 



Gills, which are characteristic of Asterope, occur, although rarely, in Cypridina 

 but, on the other hand, are never found in Philomedes; this last-mentioned fact loses — 

 according to this author — in importance, however, if we assume that gills were character- 

 istic of the ancestral forms of the sub-ordo Cypridiniformes. 



It must be clear to every one who has closely studied the last-mentioned group that the 

 luimber of joints on the first antenna cannot be used to support an assumption that the 

 A s t e r o p i d s approach the sub-family Cypridininae. The number of joints is, in reality, 

 not infrequently different in males and females of the same species of these groups. The im- 

 portance of the gills for the solution of this question may be said to be very small; these simple 

 organs may very well have developed by convergence in Cypridininae and Asteropidae. 

 ReiaiwHHkip between According to G. W. MttLLER's statement, 1890, the genus Sarsiella also resembles 



Philomedes. The characters brought forward to support this assumption are as follows (p. 226) : 

 ,,In einigen Punkten erinnert sie an die Mannchen von Philomedes, so 

 im Fehlen des Kaufortsatzes der Mandibel und 

 im Bau der zweiten Maxille, 



Beachtenswerth erscheint die Reduction der Glieder der ersten Antenne, 

 das Fehlen jcder Gliederung am Maxillarfuli, 

 das Auftreten von erhabenen Leisten auf dej' OberHache der Schale." 



SnrmeUa and Philo- 

 medes. 



