(346 TAGR SKOGSBERG 



Si/nonijiiii/. Remarks: — The species dealt with by me above is described from specimens cauglit 



dfi' the west coast of Sweden. It seems to me practically certain that it is identical with C. 

 obtusata, G. 0. Sars, 1865. It is true that the original description of the latter species is very 

 incomplete, but for niuch the same reasons as have been put forward on p. 631 above in the 

 case of C. elegans it appears to be quite sufficient for certainty of identification. 



This species was at first referred by G. 0. Sars to the genus Conchoecia; in a later work 

 by this writer, 1890, however, it was transferred to the genus Halocypris. This alteration, 

 presumably made under the influence of a statement in the same direction by C. Claus, 1874 a, 

 p. 178, and only explicable, of course, as being due to G. 0. Sars's slight knowledge of the 

 difterences between these two genera, has cjuite correctly been set aside by other writers. 



The following names included in tlie list of synonyms given above are without descriptions 

 and verificatory figures: G. 0. Sars, 1890; E. Vanhoffen, 1897; 0. Nordgaard, 1899; P. T. 

 Cleve, 1903; P. T. Cleve and 0. Pettersson, 1903; Th. Scott. 1905; C. H. OSTENFELU, 

 1906; E. KOEFOED, 1907; C. H. OSTENFELD and C. WESENBERG-Lu.Xb, 1909; 0. APSTEIN, 1911; 

 E. JORGENSEN, 1912 and K. Stephensen, 1913. They are included in the list in question in 

 spite of this, because they all refer to finds from regions in which this species is known for 

 certain to exist. I was able to verify one of these statements myself by a re-examination of the 

 original material; this was that of P. T. Cleve, 1903 (=^ P. T. C'leve and 0. Pettersson, 1903). 



G. S. Brady and A. M. Norman's description, 1896. is based on some specimens from 

 the coast of Norway, determined by G. 0. Sars. 



G. \\. MUller's description, 1901, which is apparently based on the same specimens as 

 formed the basis of E. VaiNHOFFEN's information, 1897, may be said to be sufficient for certainty 

 of identification. 



It may also be considered as quite certain that this was the form dealt with by V. VA\'RA, 

 1906. Are we to refer the most southerly finds in this author's work to this species as well? 



On the other hand it did not seem to me proper to include in the above list of synonyms 

 Conchoecia obtusata, G. S. Brady, 1868 b, p. 470 (= the same writer, 1868 a, p. 128). The 

 figure, pi. XLI, fig. 9, with which this author illustrates this find shows an organism of so peculiar 

 a type that it seems to me quite impossible to identify it (= Ostracod?). This uncertainty on 

 the part of this writer has also prevented me from including C. obtusata, G. S. BRADY and 

 D. Robertson, 1872, p. 70 as a synonym either. Nor has C. obtusata, A. M. NORMAN, 1869, 

 pp. 256, 257, 260 and 295 been included; with regard to this find, which is presumably the same 

 as was the basis of G. S. Brady's information, 1868 a and b, the first-mentioned writer says 

 (p. 295): ,,A single imperfect Conchoecia, believed to belong to this species . . . ." 

 Differences between jj- jj, ^-j.^^^ ^|^.^^ there are a number of small differences to be noted between the descriptions 



lay description and r i ■ ■ iii t- .... 



those (if previous "•^ ^^^^^ species worked out by precedmg writers and the information given by me above, but it 

 authors. does not seem to me necessary to discuss these in any detail. Most of them are presumably 



due to lack of accuracy on the part of the previous writers. 



There is so far no information in the literature as to the proportion between males antl 



males and females, f i • . , ■ • y , • i p <-ii t-> i • 



lemales in this species. In the material from Skager Kak investigated by me the males were in 

 most cases rather considerably fewer than the females. Thus in a sample from Koster there 



I'roporliiin between 



