490 TAGE SKOGSBERG 



agreement with the figures given in this treatise; the bristle-bearing list had 29—31 spines. 

 First antenna: The boundary between the fourth and fifth joints was like that shown in the 

 figure given by me. Similarly the maxilla agreed entirely with that of the species described 

 above. The difference I observed between the specimen from the Bay of Naples that I investi- 

 gated and the tvpe-specimen of this species with regard to the hyaline spines on the spine- 

 bciiring list, the postero-distal l)ristles on the fourth joint of the first antenna, the basal spines on 

 the exopodite of the second antenna and the medial cleaning bristles of the mandible (see above) 

 cannot be considered to stand in the way of this identification, as these are characters which, 

 as I showed in the descrij^tion of the genus, 1 did not find quite constant in the species of this 

 genus. With regard to the postero-distal bristles on the fourth joint of the first antenna 

 G. \y. Muller's fig. 30, pi. 4 agrees well with mine, a fact which may, of course, be considered 

 to support this identification still further. 



(t. S. Brady's and A. M. Norman's species Asterope teres, 1896, differs strikingly with 

 regard to the shape of its shell both from the former author's Cylindroleheris teres, 1868 b, and 

 from the species of G. W. Mi'LLER's discussed above. Nor does the latter author synonymize 

 these forms with each other, 1912. Consequently this form cannot well be synonymized with 

 the species described by me above either. G. S. BRADY's and A. M. NORMAN's description and 

 figures are of such a nature with regard to characters other than the shape of the shell that all 

 that can be said — due consideration being paid to probable and certain errors in observation 

 and drawing on the part of these authors — is that this form is presumably comparatively 

 closely related both to Brady's species, 1868 b, and to the form described by me above. 



With regard to G. W. Muller's synonymization of Copechaete armoricana and C. fissa 

 with forms that come into this genus see the historical summary of this family, p. 434 above. 

 For his synonymization, 1912, of Asterope oculata G. S. Brady see the remarks under this 

 species in this treatise. 



On account of the absence of descriptions and figures nothing certain can be said about 

 the relation of the following forms to the species described by me above: Bradycinetus teres, 

 A. M. Norman, 1867, p. 198, Cypridma teres, G. S. Brady, 1867, p. 208, Cylindroleheris teres. 

 G. S. BHADY, 1868 a, p. 128, Asterope teres . G. S. Brady and D. Robertson, 1872, pp. 54, 70, 

 A. teres, G. S. BRADY and D. ROBERTSON, 1874, p. 115, A. teres, G. S. BRADY and D. ROBERTSON, 

 1876, p. 187, A. teres, A. M. Norman and G. S. Brady, 1909, p. 359 and Cylindroleheris teres, 

 (). de BlEX, 1916, p. 365. 



In connection with this question of nomenclature I wish to point out here, thougli oidy 

 in ])assing and as a curious fact, G. 0. Sars's assumption that Asterope teres is the female of 

 A. Marine (W. Baird). This assuiiq)tii)n was put forward in his work of 18()9, p. 357, obviously 

 under the inftuence of his discovery of the dimorphism in the genus Philomedes (G. O. Sars 

 1869, p. 355). At first G. 8. Brady hesitated about this assumption, 1871, p. 295, but then 

 he adopted it altogether (G. 8. Brady, H. W. Crosskey and D. Roi'.ERTSON, 1874, p. 218); 

 in his later works he passed it over quite in silence. Othei' authors do not even trouble 

 to discuss it. G. (). Sars maintains it, however, even in his latest work on these forms, 

 1SS7. p. 13. 



