ttional type between 

 the two sub-families? 



178 TAGE SKOGSBERG 



the simple structure of the penis (cf.. in addition, the remarks under CyprUiniformes 

 above). 



In a number of otlier characters it is, however, undubitably considerably more 

 divergent than the latter group, for instance with regard to 

 the first antenna in the female, 



the development of the second exopodite joint of the fifth limb into a huge tooth 

 and especially, 



the great sexual dimorphism, which is shown jjrincipally in the strongly reduction 

 of all the masticatory organs in the males. 



Under these circumstances it seems to me most convenient simply to follow G. W. 

 MUller in placing the sub-family C ypridininae first. 

 Is there any trans- Can any of tlic fomis SO far described be regarded as .a transitional type between 



these two sub-families? 



G. S. Brady's assumption, 1898, p. 437, that the genus Pyrocypris {Cijpridina, s. str. 

 sensu meo) would form a transitional type of this kind is of course due merely to this author's 

 lack of sufficiently thorough knowledge of the forms belonging to it. 



As early as in his work of 1880, p. 158, the same author suggested that the genus Crosso- 

 phorus would resemble the genus Philomedes. This assumption has since been repeated by 

 G. 0. Sars, 1887,*p. 11. G. W. MULLER, 1890, p. 226 expresses himself, however, more 

 cautiously in this matter; he writes: ,,Ueber die Stellung der Gattung CrossopAorws BRADY wage 

 ich kein Urtheil auszusprechen .... .Sars glaubt, daB die Gattung niiher verwandt ist mit 

 Philomedes, wofiir auch einige Thatsachen sprechen wiirclen." It seems at present to be rather 

 difficult to decide whether this opinion of G. S. Brady and G. 0. Sars is justified. It may, 

 however, be pointed out that the characters by which CrossopJiorus seems to approach Philo- 

 medes are probably to be regarded as being comparatively old. Of these characters we may 

 mention here the absence of suctorial organs on the end- bristles of the first antenna, the 

 development of the endojiodite of the second antenna in the male into a clasping organ and 

 perhaps also the rather deeply bifurcated endite on the coxale of the mandible, cf. p. 171 

 above. — In any case the genus Crossophorus does not form any unaltered transitional type 

 between these two sub-families. 



As far as I know there is so far no form described which may be pointed out as 

 a certain connecting link between these two groups. It is, however, impossible to answer 

 this question with any certainty on account of the incompleteness and uncertainty of most 

 of the descriptions hitherto published. 



* Seu also C. Glaus, 1«88, p. 151. 



