Studii's on marine Oslracods 201 



kennen gelernt habeu, iind es endlich unerklarbar bleibt, wie der Mitteklarm in der Leibeshohle 

 suspendiert ist, fallt es schwer, diesen Mangel des Bindegewebes als tatsachlich bestehend 

 anzunehmen. Ich mochte deshalb auch hier einen Irrtum nicht fiir ausgeschlossen halten." 

 The correctness of the assumption that G. pellucida is a larva of G. Agassizi may 

 be considered as pretty certain. Besides the reasons quoted above from L. LCdeks the 

 following evidence in favour of this assumption may be advanced here: 



Except G. Agassizi no form is yet known which can possibly be considered as the 

 sexually mature stage of G. pellucida. 



The two forms were captured at the same time antl at the same locality. 

 In examining 11 — 12 mm. long larvae of my Atlantic species of this genus described 

 below I have stated that their seventh limb was characterized by the same small number 

 — about 15 — 20, i. e. about 7 — 10 on each side — of teeth of the end comb as this appendage 

 of G. pellucida. The number of the bells on the cleaning bristles of this limb was less than 

 in the sexually mature stage, none of these bristles was, however, quite without bells. It is, 

 however, noteworthy that cleaning bristles quite of the type that G. W. MtJLLER fomid in 

 a very small number on this limb of G. 'pellucida, in other words bristles ,,mit einfachem 

 pinselartigem Ende" (G. W. MtiLLEli, 1895, PI. I. fig. 22), were found in G. Miilleri, also 

 very seldom, both on sexually mature specimens and on larvae. This type had, however, 

 obviously arisen by the distal part of the bristle having been broken off, the simple ;,pinser'- 

 shaped point represented simply the proximal bell of the intact bristle. 



\Miether G. pellucida corresponds to the first or second larval stage of G. Agassizi seems, 

 on the other hand, very difficult to decide. Its small length, 16 mm., compared with 

 the 21 — 23 mm. of the sexually mature specimens, certainly seems to support the idea that 

 it represents the second larval stage, contrary to G. H. FoW'LEU's assumption. 



G. W. MULLER in his above-mentioned work (p. 165) put forward the assumption that -i rcpre^^eiitaiHc uj 

 a representative of the genus Gigantocijpris had alread}- before been mentioned in literature. "^""'rcd'Ti'^ i"'' 

 In a letter to Carl von SlEBOLD RICHARD von WlLLEMOES-SUHAl wrote that the „C h a 1- ..riniUenger'-? 

 1 e n g e r" Expedition had caught an s t r a c o d with a shell of 25 mm. length between 

 Prince Edward's and Crozet Islands (R. v. WlLLEAlOES-Sril.M : ..B r i e f e v. d. C li a 11 e n g e r- 

 e X p e d i t i o n." Zs. wiss. Zool. Bd. XXIV, p. XIII, Leipzig, 1874). G. W. MCller also made 

 the same assumption in one of his later works, 1906 a. p. 136. A later author, L. Luders, 

 1909, p. 103, repeats this assumption. 



According to a statement of \V. T. C.'al.uax in a notice in Nature, vol. LXXX, 1909, 

 p. 248 the specimen to which WiLLEMOES-SUHM referred is still preserved in the British Museum. 

 It is not, however, an s t r a c o d, but a species belonging to Leptostraca, Nebaliopsis typica, 

 described bv G. 0. Sars. 



Zoolug. biding, Uppsjlu, Supi-l.-iicl. 1. 2b 



