4(i2 TAiU-; SK(»(isi;Hi;<J 



bristle is also to be iuuiid on the male first antenna. This bristle is situatetl near the distal bristles 

 in the female, because of the smallness of the end joint, but in the male it is rather far removed 

 from these bristles. It is certain that we are not concerned here with a displacement of this 

 bristle, as in the male, just as in the female, it is situated distally on the sixth joint; on the 

 contrary its removal from the other bristles is due to the strong development of the end joint. 

 If G. 0. Sars's assumption that the original female sixth joint had been split were correct, it 

 is clear that this bristle ought still to be situated close to the end bristles; in order to reach its 

 present place it must have shifted right across the joint that G. 0. Sars describes as the seventh, 

 a phenomenon that seems anything but probable. 



Nor is the small part that G. 0. Sars denoted as the end joint homologous witli the part 

 that I showed above ought perhaps to be distinguished as a special, an eighth, joint. According 

 to G. 0. Sars the former part carries the b-, c-, f- and g-bristles. The latter jjart, on the other 

 hand, has the (d-), e-, f- and g-bristles. The latter part is moved in the male by two very strong 

 muscles, fixed proximally at about the boundary between the sixth and seventh joints. 

 These muscles have no homologon in the females of this genus. On the other hand the eighth 

 joint of the first antenna of all the species belonging to the sub-family Cypridininae that I had 

 an opportunity of investigating closely is moved by two muscles which are certainly homologous 

 with these. In this sub-family as well these muscles arise on the boundary between the sixth 

 and seventh joints, but, on account of the comparatively smaller size of the seventh joint they 

 are not inconsiderably smaller. 



It follows from this that G. W. Muller's idea of the male end joint, quoted above, is 

 also incorrect. — Nor can this author's statement that the fifth and sixth joints of the male 

 first antenna are always united be correct either, as is shown by the genus description I have 

 given above; for all the species investigated by me had these joints free. But it does not seem 

 impossible, however, that in some species of this genus these two joints are joined into one. 

 This view is supported first by the fact that the boundary between these joints is sometimes, 

 at least partly, rather weakly developed, secondly that the sixth joint is not moved by any 

 special muscles. It is, however, to be noted that G. W. Muller's own figures, both those in 

 his large monograph of 1894 and others as well, directly contradict his statement. I shall 

 only point out here that in pi. 4, figs. 15 and 17. of the mentioned work the boundary between 

 these two joints is very well drawn, although on the former the boundary between the fourth 

 and the fifth and on the latter the boundaries between both the fourth and the fifth joints on 

 the one hand and the sixth, seventh and eighth joints on the other are not drawn. As far 

 as this writer's statement, 1894, p. 23 that the fourth and the fifth joints are always joined 

 in the male first antenna is concerned, this seems to be exceedingly problematical. In the 

 first place I have always found these two joints well divided from each other on the species 

 investigated by me, and secondly the fifth joint is moved by no less than three special muscles. 



From what has been said above it also follows that G. S. Brady's and A. M. NORMAN's 

 information, 1896, is not quite correct. 

 , ', ", ", ",","■ ' A number (if facts show the correctness of the lioniologization of the various distal bristles 



(ij llir (listiii hrislli's O 



iij tkr jtrst anienna. Oil the first auteiiiia of tile male and the female which has been adopted above. It may of course 



