studies on marine Ostracoiis 71? 



fig., 1901. In a number of the female* specimens of maxima investigated by me the shoulder 

 vault was rounded, in others it was more or less distinctly sharp-edged. The sculpture of the 

 shell in the maximu form is, as (J. (). Sak.s pointed out, weaker than in horealis, but this character 

 too is subject to some variation. (On the other hand I was unable to discover any difference 

 in the denseness of the reticulation such as G. S. BliAl)^ and A. .M. NORMAK pointed out. Nor 

 was I able, like these writers, to find any distinct difference between the two forms with regard 

 to the type of the shell as seen from above.) 



An exceedingly minute investigation of the other organs of these two forms did not 

 conhrm G. O. Sahs's supposition that additional differences exist. Thus, unlike G. S. BUAin 

 and A. M. NORMAX, I was unable to find any difference with regard to the strength of the spines 

 on tlu^ e-bristle of the male first antenna. There is, however, possibly a difference in the number 

 of these spines; in the maxima specimens investigated by me there were only 44 — 49 spines in 

 each row, while in the horealis specimens, as is seen above, there were 50 — 55. 



That C. horealis, E. Vamioffrn, 1897 (= C. h., G. W. MCller, 1901) is s,,„on„ni.<. 

 identical with the frutxima form is shown with all desirable clearness by G. W. MCLLER's 

 description and figures. 



The identity of C. horealis, C. W. S. Al RniLLIUS, 1899, pp. 38 and 58 (= part. P. T. C'LE\E, 

 1900) was verified by myself on a re-examination of the original material; cf. below. — ('. horealis, 

 C. W. S. AURIVILLIUS, 1899, pp. 62 and 66 proved, on the contrary, after a verificatory investig- 

 ation carried out by me, to be tj'pical horealis forms; cf. p. 715 above. 



Although C. maxima, H. H. Grax, 1902, P. T. Clione, 1903 and C. H. OSTENFELD, 1906 

 are not accompanied by any verificatory information, it seemed to me justifiable, all the same, 

 to include them in tlie list of synonyms given above. 



C. maxima, G. S. Brady, 1902 a, p. 199 (= the same author 1903. pp. 337. 338 and 

 A. M. Norman 1905, p. 155) is, on the other hand, not included in this list, as these authors 

 themselves point out the uncertainty of the determinations by adding a query. 



C. maxima, G. H. Fowler, 1897, p. 523 and 1903, p. 121 are not followed by any 

 descriptions or verificatory drawings; under these circumstances it did not seem convenient 

 to me to include these names in the list of synonyms given above. 



Habitat: — Arctic Ocean: 



Lat. 66" 53' N., kmg. 2" .52' W.; depth, 500—0 m.; 5. VI. 1899: 6 specimens; R. M. S. 

 388. Lat. 71" 30' N., long. 21" \\.; depth, 200—0 m.; 27. VII. 1899: 1 mature female; R. lAl. 

 S. 389. Lat. 77" 39' N., long. 1" 18' E.; depth, 500-0 m.; 26.-27. \'ll. 1S9S: 15 .specimens; 

 R. M. 8. 390. Lat. 77" 52' N., long. 3" 5' W.; (k^pth, 500—0 m.; 29. \1I. 1S!»8: 14 specimens; 

 R. M. S. 391. Lat. 78" 13' N., k)ng. 2" 58' W.; 29.— 30. YII. 1898: Depth, 100— <) m.: 1 juvenis; 

 R. M. S. 392. Depth, 500—0 m.: 10 specimens; R. M. S. 393. Depth, 2600—0 m.: 50 speci- 

 mens; R. M. 8. 394. (= A part of the material of C. W. S. AiRlviLLH s, 1899 -- P. T. ClJ:\ E, 1900.) 



The statements as to how many specimens of this form were caught at each of the above- 

 mentioned stations are taken from an unpublished manuscript (A Professor J. G. ANr)RnsS0N, 



* c.r. (i. w. Mui.i.Ku. I'.U'j. |j. s:. 



