Studies on marine Ostracods 2t)l 



The maxilla and the fifth and sixth limbs are very like those of the female. 



Seventh limb: — This is very like that of the female. The following numbers 

 of cleaning bristles were observed: from nine to thirteen ventral ones and from eight to eleven 

 dorsal ones situated close together distally; proximally of these from five to seven ventral ones 

 and from eight to ten dorsal ones scattered about. The equipment of these bristles was similar 

 to that of the female. The end comb sometimes seemed to be slightly weaker than in the female. 



Penis (fig. 7): — This is of the fundamental type for this sub-family; for details see 

 the accompanying figure; the number of bristles varies to some extent. 



F u r c a (fig. 8): — As in tlie case of the female, it has nine claws; in the male, however, 

 these are somewhat mores lender; the second, third and fourth claws are joined to the lamella; no. 3 

 is somewhat Aveakened. The equipment of the claws is perhaps a little weaker than in the female. 



The upper lip and r o d - s h a p e d organ are about the same as in the female. 



The lateral eyes' have from fourteen to sixteen ommatidia and are thus somewhat 

 larger than in the female. / 



The back of the body is somewhat folded transversally. 



Remark'^: — The original description of Cijpridina norvegica W. Bau^d is, as is seen from Remarks about 

 the above list of synonyms, to be found in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, '''^ original 

 1860, p. 200. G. S. Brady and A. M. Norman, 1896, and G. W. MCller, 1912, give it as <^««'-'/""'«- 

 being from the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 1860, p. 139. This is, however, 

 incorrect, inasmuch as the treatise entitled ,,0n some new species of Cypridina", to which 

 these authors obviously refer, is only a reproduction of the original treatise. It is printed 

 under the heading , .Proceedings of Learned Societies, Zoological Society". Unlike the original 

 treatise, however, it is not accompanied by any illustrations. 



The description in question is very short and is given in very general terms, without 

 any characteristic details being produced. Only the shell is dealt with. The accompanying 

 figures are also of such a nature that certainty of identification is impossible. Thus in 1912 

 G. W. MOller quite justly denotes G. S. Brady's and A. M. Norman's identification as uncertain 

 by adding a query. 



The species in question was described from a specimen caught on ,,the coast of Norway'". hiemificaiion. 

 Only one other species of this sub-genus is described from this region, namely C. (V.) megalops 

 G. 0. Sars. As this region may be said to be rather well investigated — at least as far as forms 

 as relatively large as the two mentioned ones are concerned — and as C. (V.) norvegica and 

 C. (V.) megalops are so essentially different from each other with regard to the form of their 

 shells that there may be no risk of confusing them, I have decided, in spite of the incompleteness 

 of W. BAlRD'soriginaldescription, to identify my form described above with this species of Baird's. 



According to the statement of W, Baird himself the type-specimen of this species is 

 preserved in the British Museum. If, however, this specimen is no longer to be found and if 

 new species with a habitus agreeing with that of C. (V.) norvegica are discovered on the coast 

 of Norway, then, of course, this species of Baird's will have to be deleted from the list of the 

 identifiable species and a new name given to the form described by me above. 



