706 TAOR SKOGSBERO 



C. porrecta. (In the small specimens described by me above this bristle was always somewhat 

 longer; it reached in most cases to about the middle of the first joint of this limb. — The state- 

 ments about this character vary in the literature, but the certainty of these statements is doubtful, 

 so that I do not think it convenient to deal with it at any length in this connection.) 



Do ('. sfinirostris and C. porrecta represent two well differentiated forms; is the identi- 

 fication carried out by G. W. Mt'LLER unjustified? 



It seems to me not improbable that these questions must be answered in the affirmative; 

 if this is the case, then it is clear that my specimens from S. A. E., PL station 4 b and the 

 larger specimens of (I. W. Muller's species C. spinirostris, 1906 a, belong to C. porrecta. 

 A definite answer to this problem is, however, not possible at present. A renewed investigation 

 carried out on abundant material would be necessary before it could be given. 



( )n account of this state of uncertainty it did not seem to me proper to include the name 

 of (,'. spinirostris, G. \X. Mtl.LEn, 1906 a, nor the same name in this investigator's works of 

 1906 b, 1908 and 1912 in my list of synonyms. 



The only one of the other writers who has accepted the synonymization C. spinirostris 

 — ('. porrecta is Th. Scdtt. 1912 a. 



G. 8. Brady, 1902 a, p. 199 (= 1903, pp. 338 and 339) and V. VA\TvA, 1906, state that 

 they have found C. porrecta, but unfortunately these writers give neither description nor figures. 

 V. VA\"RA, who states that he found this species — only female specimens — at no less than 

 fifteen of the stations of the ,, Plankton Expedition", only writes ,,diese leicht erkenntliche Art", 

 an expression that is presumably taken direct from C. Claus's original description. 



G. H. Fow'LRR, 1909, takes C. porrecta as ,, Stage I" of C. spinirostris. Only two specimens, 

 two males, of the first-mentioned form were found in the material in question. Both these 

 specimens had shells 1,3 mm. long. The e-bristle on the first antenna was characterized by 

 .,16 pairs of saw-like teeth, followed by about 11 pairs of spine-teeth; the latter so 

 mai-kedly alternate as to suggest a single row unless viewed directly from above"; there were 

 consequentlv 16 pairs of ., saw-like teeth" and a row of 22 ,, spine-teeth", i. e. about the 

 sajne number as was found by C. GLAUS, G. W. MULI,ER and me. For other characters see the 

 woi'k in question, p. 2.52. Gf. also in this matter p. 565 above. 



The only writer who has followed this procedure of G. H. Fovvler's is L. SCHWEIGER, 

 1912. This writers says (p. 266) tliat he followed G. H. FoWLER and not G. W. MULLER „weil 

 mir vereinzelte Stadium II untergekommen sind, die aber doch im Verhiiltnis gestreckte Formen 

 waien, und umgekehrt Formen von I, die aber weniger gestreckt als die vorher erwahnten waren." 

 No length is given for the ,,porrecta stage"; the males of the ,. spinirostris stage" would have 

 attained a length of 1,02 — 1,3 mm. and the females 1,12 — 1,5 mm. The work, wliicli is character- 

 ized by a certain amount of uncertainty, has no other information that is of any interest in 

 coiiiKH'tion with this problem. 



(J. spinirostris, V. VAVRA, 1906, has not been included in the above list of synonyms 

 l)ecause this writer states that the females of this species investigated by him had a dorsal bristle 

 on the second joint of the first antenna: ,,mit sehr feiner, gewohnlich dem Frontalorgan eng 

 anliegendci- Doisnlltorstc, so dal.i diest'lbe von einigen Autoren iil^erselien wurde"; in plate I, 



