studies nil marino Ostrinods 



3,3.3 



in the end comb. (It seems certain, however, that the mechanism of the jaws is more complicated 

 than is described here, but certain results with regard to this question seem impo.ssible to attain 

 with preserved material; the , .lower jaw" can, as has been stated above, certainly move cpiite 

 freely, and, in spite of this, it is not moved by special muscles fixed directly on it.) 



Furca: — The lamellae are elongated. The number of claws is about five or si.\. 

 There is no distinct division into main and secondary claws. 



The upper lip has three fields of glands, one unpaired, directed forward and down- 

 ward, forming a rather high process, cut off somewhat obliquely distally, and two paired fields, 

 directed somewhat more ventrally and situated distally on two fang-like processes. Between 

 the upper lip and the frontal organ there is an unpaired process. 



The r o d - s h a p c d org a n is rather well developed but sliort. 



The paired eyes are well developed. 



Remarks: — The description given above is based chiefly on the form described below 

 and M. (C.) asymmetrica (G. W. Mt'fd.Eli), the only species of this sub-genus which are described 

 in detail. 



This sub-genus was established, as is seen above, by G. S. Bii.UiV in liis work of 1902 a. 

 The following diagnosis is given, loc. cit. p. 187: ,,Like Ci/pridina, except as to the three pairs 

 of maxillae. The first pair form a simple, elongated, triarticulate limb, whicli bears at its 

 distal extremity several strongly pectinated claws and setae; to the basal joint is attached a 

 small single-jointed trisetose palp. The second maxilla is in general built like that of Philomedea 

 or Cypridina, but the principal masticating processes are armed with blunt nodular marginal 

 teeth; third maxilla without the hatchet-shaped lobe of Cypridina, which is replaced bv a 

 digitiform prolongation, retaining, however, something of the hatchet-shape." 



A comparison will show that there is no great agreement between this (to say the least 

 of it) strange description and the new description I have given above of the same imit. This 

 lack of agreement seems, however, at least to some extent, to be due to mistakes on the part 

 of G. S. Brady. Thus, for instance, this author has overlooked the peculiar freely moveable 

 appendage of the maxilla from which the three endites issue. In the description of the second 

 endopodite joint of the sixth limb there are also certainly some mistakes; the two very large 

 posterior bristles, which are directed backwards and are closely covered with hairs, were pre- 

 sumably situated so very close to each other (possibly they were also broken oflt distally) in 

 Brady's preparation that they have produced an appearance something like what this author 

 has described and reproduced (loc. cit. pi. XXII, fig. 28). \\'hether the main tooth of the first 

 exopodite joint of the fifth limb has the equipment described by Bhadv I miLst leave undecided; 

 it does not seem impossible to nu?, however, that there is also a mistake with regard to this. 

 This explanation of G. S. Bi!Ai> v's peculiar statements has already been given by G. W. ^iri.LEn, 

 1906 b, p. 13. 



There scarcely seems to be any reason for seriously doubting that the species described below 

 by me really belongs to this sub-genus. In spite of many mistakes in the description and reproduction 

 of M. (C.) favus G. S. Bj^ady has not quite succeeded in concealing the type of this species. 



liaais of the 



<:. S. Jiradi/'s 

 rliagnosis. 



Di/fiTPncrs in tlir 



Certain: 11 o; 

 idcnti/icalion. 



