632 TAGE SKOGSBERd 



at the same time by the author just mentioned; as far as I can see these three are also the only 

 species of this group that are found in this region (at least regularly and in any great number 

 (G. 0. Sahs writes of the occurrence of C. elegans ,,haud frequens in freto Drobakiensi . . . ; 

 copiosissime vero ad insulas liofotenses"). These three species are of such well differentiated 

 types that the descriptions worked out by the author mentioned are quite sufficient to distinguish 

 them. It is also to be noted that the description and figures given above are based partly 

 on material from one of the original localities — Lofoten — which was determined by G. (). Sars 

 himself for C. elegans, and partly on material from Koster, a locality situated rather near Drebak, 

 one of the two other original localities. 



It is true that another species of the genus Conchoecia has been described from about 

 the same region, namely C. quadrangular is C. W. S. AURIVILLIUS (from the west coast of 

 Sweden), but this species is, as G. W. MtJLLER has already pointed out, 1901, p. 3, certainly 

 a synonym of C. elegaris. It is true that I have not been able to verify the correctness of this 

 identification by a re-examination of the original material, as this, as far as I could discover, 

 has been lost, but owing to the poverty of this region in Halocyprid species, a fact that has 

 already been pointed out above, it is nevertheless very easy to decide tliis problem with full 

 certainty. An investigation of samples of plankton from the same localities and taken at the 

 same time of the year as Al himllils's original material was captured showed that C. quadr- 

 atigularis certainly corresponds to larvae of C. elegans. It seems difficult to decide which 

 larval stage or stages the author in (question was dealing with; presumably it was Stages I and II, 

 but this question is, of course, of minor importance. A detailed discussion as to which characters 

 in C. qimdrangularis show the larval type and which characters decidedly indicate identity 

 with C. elegans would be superfluous. 



The identification of Paraconchoecia gracilis, C. Cl^4U,s, 1890 and 1891 a with C. elegans 

 also seems to be quite certain. This identification was first made by G. S. BRADY and A. M. 

 Norman, 1896. Curiously enough, in spite of this, G. S. BRADY adopts the name Paraconchoecia 

 gracilis in his later works, 1902 a and 1907. 



Most of the names taken up in the list of synonyms given above have no verifying state- 

 ments and drawings; these names are: Conchoecia elegans, G. 0. Sars, 1869; E. Vanhoffen 

 1897; 0. NordGAARD, 1898, 1899 and 1905; C. W. S. AURIVILLIUS, 1898 and 1899; P. T. Cleve, 

 1900 and 1903; H. H. GRAN, 1902; Til. ScOTT, 1902 b, 1905 and 1912 a; P. T. Cleve and 

 PETTERSSON, 1903; C. H. OSTENFELD, 1906; G. W. MCLLEH, 1906 b and 1908; A. K. LiNKO, 

 1907; E. Koefoed, 1907; C. H. Ostenfeld and C. WesexberG-Lund, 1909; C. Apsteix, 1911; 

 E. .JORGE.NSEN, 1912; K. Stephensen, 1913 and Paraconchoecia gracilis, G. S. Brady, 1902 a 

 and 1907. 



All these statements, except those of G. W. MOller, G. S. Brady, 1907 and Th. Scott, 

 1912 a refer to finds from our Scandinavian and Arctic waters. Their inclusion in the list of 

 synonyms is due to the fact that in these regions — at least as far as we know — there is 

 no species found with which confusion seems probable. I have been able myself to verify a 

 couple of these statements by a re-examination of the original material; these were: 

 C. W. S. AURIVILIJUS, 1899 (--P. T. Cli^VE, 1900; cf. p. 635 below) and P. T. Cle\E, 1903 



