190 TACtR rkoosrerg 



allein gezeichnet, er findet sich in gleicher Form z. B. bei Cypridina asymmeirica, die eigen- 

 thiimlich knotige BewafEnnng der Zahnborsten des 1. Thoraxboinos (2. Maxille) diirfte das 

 Resiiltat einer perspectivischen Verkiirzimg sein, beim 2. MaxillarfuQ durfteu sich die beiden 

 dicken nach hinten gerichteten Borsten (vergl. Taf. 6, Fig. 7) derart aneinandergelegt haben, daB 

 sie fill" einen oberflaclilichen Beobachter wie ein Fortsatz erscheinen. Wollen wir die fragliche 

 Form aus der Gattung Cypridina entfernen, wofiir allerdings Brady's Diagnose keinerlei Anhalt 

 gewahrt, so miissen wir sie mit Monopia vereinigen, docli iniiBte dann die Diagnose dieser 

 Crattung ganz anders lauten." 



Is Cypridina, in the conception that G. W. MOller has given to this genus, to be regarded 

 as a classificatory unit as homogeneous and as well-defined as the other genera of this sub-family? 



The incompleteness and incorrectness that are characteristic of the descriptions of the 

 majority of the species belonging to this genus result in our being able at present to submit 

 these forms to only a comparatively superficial comparative investigation. But even a rather 

 superficial study of them is, however, sufficient to show us that this genus comprises rather 

 heteroo-eneous elements. It seems to have been a sort of lumber-room in which were tlirown together 

 all the forms that it was impossible to arrange under any of the genersi Crossnphortis, Pyrocypris, 

 Gigantocypris and Codonocera. — G. W. MULLER himself has pointed out the unnatural character 

 of this genus and the urgency of splitting it up into smaller systematic units. Statements 

 pointing in this direction are found both in this author's work of 1906 a (p. 130) and in that 

 of 1906 b (p. 13). In the former we read (loc. cit.): ,,Die Gattung umfaBt auch nach Aus- 

 scheidung einiger aberranten Formen nocli recht heterogene Elemente. Eine Auflosung der 

 Gattung in natiirliche Gruppen erschtMnt dringend erwiinscht, aber zur Zeit nicht (hirchfiihrbar." 



Is thiM'c anv lui'iu oi' fufuis tluit ciin l)i' saiil to conti'ihute moi'c than <itli('cs to making 

 this genus lieterogeiicous? 



This question nmst be answered in the affirmative. 



Cypridina asymmetrica G. \X. MuLLER is in a great number of the cliaracters of the 

 sheU, maxilla, sixtli and seventh limbs, furca and upper lip decidedly opposed to the great 

 majority of the species included in tliis genus. To tliis species Cypridina, Bairdi G. S. BRADY 

 and C. favus (G. S. BRADY') {^ Cypridinodes favus) certainly appear to be rather closely related. 

 Unfortunately these two species are very incompletely known. In C. Bairdi we only Icnow, 

 out of the organs in cjuestion, the shell, maxilla and furca, anil these show very great agreement 

 with the corresponding organs in C. asymmetrica. In the case of C. favus we know, out of the 

 organs mentioned, the shell, maxilla, sixth and seventh limbs and the furca; of these the shell 

 (as I myself have verified during my re-examination of the type-specimen of this species; see 

 below, note on the sub-genus Cypridinodes) the maxilla, seventh limb and furca show close 

 agreement with the corresponding organs in C. asymmetrica; the differences with regard to the 

 sixth limb are, as G. W. MOlvLEH has pointed out, probably due to incorrect observation on the 

 part of G. 8. Brad^ . These three species certainly constitute a distinct and quite 

 natural group. G. W. MOller seems already to have verified this; in this investigator's 

 work of 1912 these three forms are placed together. To place them in the genus Cypridina 

 (sensu <;. \V. MCLLERl) seems undoubtedly to tx' a mistake. 



