V.U TAOR SKOGSCEliG 



were in several respects closely related to the genus Cufridina, in others to Asterope. ,,From 

 this mixture of the characters of the two genera, and taking into consideration tlie minuteness 

 of the parts examined, and the different appearance these same jjarts assume in different 

 positions under different microscopes and with different observers, I am inclined to believe 

 these two genera to be identical." In his work of 1850 a W. Baird says. p. 17fi, that he is 

 following the authority of J. D. Daxa in synonymizing these two genera; he writes: ,,fi{le 

 Dana in Uteris".* Finally F. Muller also uses the generic name Ci/pridina for species 

 belonging here in his essay ,,B e m e r k u n g e n ii b e r Cypridma'", 1870, a work which is 

 to some extent rather meritorious and which is based on the dissection of three C y ]) r i d i n i d s 

 (one species belonging to the genus Philomedes and two species belonging to the family Astero- 

 pidae). This author writes on p. 255: ,,Ich behalte fiir alle drei, wie iiberhaupt fiir alle Muschel- 

 krebse, die seitliche Augen und die bekannten ,,geringelten Anhange" besitzen, den Namen 

 Gypridina bei." F. Muller explains this point of view by stating that the anatomy of all 

 the species then described was too inadequately known to permit of a scientifically founded 

 division of the forms belonging to this unit into smaller systematic units. 



G. (). ,Sai:s, in his work of 1865, p. 100, points out that Asterope must be considered 

 as a special genus, well distinguished from other C y p r i d i n i d s. 

 The iKimf Asien>itc. Q. ,^. Br.ady, in his work 1868 a, p. 127, established a new genus Cylindroleberis, which 



included two species previously grouped under the genus Cypridina, G. Mariae W. Baird and 

 r*. teres A. M. NORMAN. Br.ADY did not, however, retain this new generic name long; already 

 in liis work of 1871 he identifies (p. 292) the geiuis Cylindroleberis with Asterope Philippi and in 

 all his subsec[uent works we only find the latter name. In spite of this a number of investigators 

 who afterwards dealt with forms belonging to this unit have nevertheless retained the name 

 Gylindrulebens, thus, for instance, G. W. Mi'LLER in his works of 1893, 1894, 1906 b and 1908 

 (not 1890, where he uses the generic name Asterope), J. A. Clshmax, 1906, Ch. Juday, 1907. 

 R. W. SlIARPE, 1909 and Th. Stebbing, 1910. The reason for this is to be found in the fact 

 that in the same year (at the same time?) as A. PlIILIPPI published his essay on the genus 

 Asterope two other investigators (Mceler and Troschel) described a new Echinoderm genus 

 under the same name. As, however, according to modern nomenclature, the generic name 

 Asterope cannot be used for the Echinoderm genus established by the two latter authors, this 

 difficulty may be considered to have disappeared. Accordingly in the present work I considered 

 it convenient to follow G. 8. Brady's example — as G. W. Muller did in 1912 — and use the 

 name given by A. PHILIPPI for this genus. 

 (\,pi'rh,u-if. The genus Gopechaete, E. Hesse, 1878 may be briefly dealt with here. This genus was 



identified by G. 0. Sars, 1887, p. 13 with the genus Asterope PlIILlPPl: ,,At den af Hesse under 

 Benaevnelsen Gopechaete opforte Slaegt er identisk med Asterope, er utvivlsomt".** G. S. BRAD^ 

 and A. M. Norman, 1896, adopt this name as ,, undoubtedly" synonymous with Asterope, ,.\n\t 

 what his species are it is impossible to say". (!. W. MULLER goes still fartlici-; in 1912. ]>]>. 4.") 



* .1. I). Daxa liini->i'ir wiilcs, IS'i'J, |). II'MK abriiii Ihc L;riius ('i//iri(/iiiir. ..II .i|i|ii'ar's hi inrhidc Ihi' Aslcro/ti' oi 



'llll.IIMM." 



** ..Ii H ciTl.iin lli;il llir ^^I'lili^ I'll.ililislii'il liy His-ii. iimlii' lllr iiaiiii' of ('iipi'chdclc [^ iilcnii'.il \\\\\\ .Islrnipr.-' 



