Slmlios on ni.iriiir Ostiacocls 397 



111 addition — unlike tlie shell of Ph. Mac Andrei — it is quite without any covering of hair. 

 The agreement between this type of shell and that of C. (Vanjvla) megalops is striking. As is 

 seen from the information given above, the females of the genus Philomedes have extremely 

 strongly reduced lateral eyes or else the latter are quite absent. The species discussed by 

 W. Baird has, on the other hand, large, well-developed lateral eyes, composed of about twentv 

 ommatids. In this point too it thus agrees with C. ( V.) megalops. It can be considered certain 

 that the first antenna does not belong to any species belonging to the genus Philomedes; this 

 is shown partly by the description quoted above and partly by the figure reproduced by W. Baird 

 (fig. 1 e). Everything indicates, on the contrary, that we are concerned with a first antenna 

 of a species belonging to the the sub-family C ypridininae. I wish here only to point out that 

 a long powerful bristle issues posteriorly on the fifth joint (W. Bairij says the fourth joint, but 

 this writer has clearly overlooked the boundary between the third and the fomth joints). 

 With regard to the natatory antenna it is clear from W. Baird's figure that only the bristle 

 of the second joint on the exopodite is relatively short, without natatory hairs and furnished only 

 with short secondary spines; the bristles on the third to the fifth joints are long natatory bristles 

 with natatory hairs. There seems to be no endopodite on this limb. The latter fact may perhaps 

 seem to support the identification of this species with G. 0. Sars's C. (Vargula) megalops, as 

 the endopodite is, as we know, very much reduced in the latter species. Two reproductions of 

 the mandible — which Baird took to be the second anterma — are given, both very incomplete 

 and impossible to use for the purpose of identification. One of these, fig. c, seems probably 

 to belong to a species of the sub-family Cypridininae, the other (fig. c*) to a Philomedes species! 



Additional facts could be given to show that this species of Baird's is not identical with 

 the species dealt with by me above. It seems, however, superfluous to do so, as those already 

 mentioned ought to be more than sufficient to show the impossibility of this identification. t 



The first to identify this species of Baird's with Lilljeborg's species was G. S. Brady, 

 1868 b, p. -167. As a reason in favour of this identification only the following is given: ,,I have 

 not had the opportunity of examining the t}^e specimens of this species ; but as I believe 

 Dr. Baird considers them to be identical with Bradycinetus glohosus, I have here adopted 

 that view." 



It is consequently a very weak argument, which of course cannot influence in any way 

 the statement made by me above as to the necessity of rejecting this synonymization. The 

 name hrenda is therefore not the right one to use for this species. 



It may, on the other hand, be taken as absolutely certain that the species described by 

 \V. LiLLJEBORG, 1853, p. 171, under the name of Cypridina globosa is identical with the form 

 dealt with by me above. There are certainly difierences in some details between LilljebuRg's 

 description and the facts observed by me — for these I need only refer the reader to a comparison 

 between my description and Lilljeborg's — but it is certain that these are to be accounted 

 for by errors of observation on the part of LlLLJEBORG. The t}T5e specimen of this species of 



t It does not seem right dpfinitivtly Iti idfiilify Ci/piiiliiiu hrnidn wiUi C. (Vnrjiiila) niegalo/is — in wliirli c;iso 

 Iho liitlcr name would be rejected. The reasons for this idrntificiitidM are Urn wrak. II seems liesl. at least foi' Ihe presenl. 

 to let this species of Baird's increase Ihe list ol' iniidenliliable species. 



