studies on marine Ostracods 



197 



Cupridinode:> 



Monopia 



Dolor i 



Giaanfocupr 



Mac rocupridina 



Cupridino 



(stnsu mto 

 tt s sir) 



Siphonosfra 



As has beeu pointed out above, Monopia seems in a way to occupy a classificatory position 

 intermediate between Varqula and Cypridinodes, the last-mentioned of which is the most 

 aberrant type of these units. In spite of this, as is seen above, I have considered 

 it most convenient to distinguish the first -mentioned and the last-mentioned ;^of these 

 three units from all the others as two sub-genera of a specific genus Monopia. ^ — It 

 may be mentioned in passing that C. Claus, 1873, p. 223 put forward the assumption that 

 Monopia flaveola might be rather closely related 

 to J. D. Dana's species Cypridina punctata 

 (J. D. Dana, 1852, pi. 91, fig. 2). 



The sub-genus Doloria, on account of 

 the primitive type of the endopodite of 

 its male second antenna, seems to occupy 



a certain exceptional position not only t(, 



Vargvla, Macrocypridina, Cypridina (s. str., 



s. meo) and Siphonostra, btit also to Monopia 



and Cypridinodes. It seems to me rather prob- 

 able that it separated from the others before 



the differentiation of Monopia-Cypridinodes. 



In spite of this I have deemed it proper to 



joiu it to the four first- mentioned of these 



units on account of the great agreement that 



it shows with these in all the other characters; 



as is pointed out above, they are aU in this 



treatise classified us sub-genera of one and the 



same genus Cypridina. 



The result of this investigation, whioli 



— as has been pointed out above — merely on 



account of the uncertainty and incompleteness 



of the material can by no means be considered 



as certain, may be shown graphically in some- 

 thing like the following maimer, fig. XXV. 



Codonocera 



Crossophorus 



I'ii;. XXV. 



Primiiive Cypridmma 



■ The liypothelical pedit'i^'i-' uf 'l>' 

 family Cypridininae. 



^»\>- 



With regard to the mutual relations of the different species within the genera it is, of roxUinn «/ 



course, even more difficult to make any statement. — Even in those genera in which the 

 majority of the species have been described, by G. W. MUller, undoubtedly oui- foremost 

 Ostracod investigator, our knowledge of the'^species is rather limited on accoimt of the 

 deficiencies of the diagnoses. In the present work I [have accordingly almost entirely 

 refrained from drawing conclusions on this point. 



tlu- 



fpi'rics 



Oecology of reproduction: — With regard to the phenomena of the oecology of repro- 

 duction in this sub-family nothing or practically nothing certain is known, nor can I contribute 

 much towards the solution of this problem. 



