580 TAGE SKOGSBERG 



flexor of the fifth joint. This is very powerful, and has its proximal attachment dorso-proximaUy, 

 somewhat laterally, in the fourth joint and its distal attachment at the ventral corner of the 

 fifth joint. — The female first antenna in this genus has a muscular system of about the same 

 type as that described for the male, but all the muscles are very weak, and some of them are 

 even quite absent. 



The descriptions given above will show that it is impossible to find between the muscular 

 system of the first antenna in the genus Euconchoecia on the one hand and the genera Halocypris- 

 Conchoecia on the other agreements of such a nature as to permit of a quite certain homolog- 

 ization being carried out between the joints of this antenna in these two groups. 



I cannot state anything very certain about the homologization of the joints of the first 

 antenna in the genus Archiconchoecia. — With regard to the numbers and positions of the bristles 

 this antenna shows a considerably greater resemblance to Halocypris and Conchoecia than the 

 corresponding limb in the genus Euconchoecia does. Thus the second joint has a single bristle 

 dorsally and the next to the distal joint has two bristles of about the same type as the bristles 

 on the corresponding joints in the genus Halocypris. The end joint has five bristles, i. e. the same 

 number as in the genus Euconchoecia. Does this fact indicate that the bristles of this joint (and 

 the end joint itself?) are homologous in the genera Archiconchoecia and Euconchoecia, and that 

 the two sensorial filaments on the next to the distal joint on this limb in the former genus 

 (and in the genera Halocypris and Conchoecia'!) correspond to the great number of similar sens- 

 orial filaments on the next to the distal joint of the first antenna in the genus Euconchoecia! 

 This does not seem to me impossible. The muscular system in this antenna in the genus Archi- 

 conchoecia is unknown; I cannot describe it myself owing to lack of material. It cannot there- 

 fore be produced here to help solve this problem. 



It is, of course, impossible at present to homologize the joints of the first antenna in this 

 sub-family with the joints on the corresponding limb in the other sub-orders. Neither the bristles 

 nor the muscular systems in any of the forms so far known in detail seem to afford any support 

 for a solution of this problem. A closer investigation of this antenna in the genus Thaumato- 

 cypris would, however, be interesting as throwing light on this question. 



NiiDiher of juints on As is sccu abovc, I have established the presence of nine joints on the exopodite of this 



limb. This number was already given by C. Claus, e. g. 1891 a, p. 22. G. W. MClleh, 

 on the other hand, always gives only eight joints for this brancli (cf. this writer, 1894, p. 37, 

 1906 a, p. 30). 



The joints on ihr With regard to the appendage on the endopodite of this limb for seizing and holding 



cn( opn lie <-/ / 1, ^-^^^ ^^^ female I have followed G. W. Muller ; in other words this appendage has been explained 



second nnleiinir. ' rr o r 



in the present work as the distal joint of the endopodite. — C. Claus took another view of this 

 problem. According to him the distal part of the second joint (according to G. W. MOller's 

 explanation), i. e. the part that has the f- and g-bristles, corresponds to the end joint of the endo- 

 podite, and the clasping organ is an accessory appendage on the original second joint. Other 

 writers do not express any quite distinct opinion in this question, but they seem, as a rule, to 

 have inclined to V. Ci.AUS's view. — Both G. W. Mi5LLER and C. Claus take up a very decided 

 position in this (juestion. The problem seems to me, liowever, exceedingly difficult to decide 



the exopodite oj the 

 seeond antenna. 



