7r)4 TAGE SKOGSBERfi 



5 = 1,15 — 1,53, o ^ 1.15 — 1,45 mm. There is, in addition, the fact that this description of 

 G. W. Muller's is too incomplete to permit of a quite certain identification of the species and 

 also that there are a i;umber of differences between this description and the specimens investig- 

 ated by me. This is shown by a comparison between G. W. Mt'LLER's pi. XXXII, fig. 9, the 

 shell of the female seen from the side, and my fig.6. 



For these reasons I also thought it best not to include in this list E. Chierchuie, G. W. 

 Mt'LLER, 1908, p. 80. No information at all is given in the latter work as to the lengths and types 

 of the specimens that were caught. 



The identification of Paraconchoecia oblonga, P. T. Clevk, 1900, as determined by J. G. 

 AnderssON, is based on a re-examination of the original specimens. (J. G. ANDERSSON does 

 not seem to have been c^uite certain about the correctness of this identification of his, as he had 

 added a cj^uery on the label; this was not included, however, by P. T. Cleve.) Only two males 

 were found in the two samples. Of these the sjjecimen from lat. 33" 17' N., long. 74" 2' W. 

 had a shell 1,17 mm. long, the specimen from lat. 42" 9' N., long. 42" 15' W. was 1,23 mm. long. 

 The latter specimen was characterized by the fact that the two valves were furnished postero- 

 dorsally with a moderately long spine; cf. hg. 3. Otherwise they agreed with the other 

 specimens of this species investigated by me. 



Under these circumstances it did not seem convenient to me to include E. Chiercliiae. 

 P. T. Gle\"E, 1904, jj. 370 in the list of synonyms given above; this form has no description 

 or verificatory figures. 



The inclusion of E. Chierchiae, G. S. BRADY, 1902 a as a synonym of the form described 

 above is due not to any far-reaching resemblance between G. S. Braiiy's description and figures 

 and the specimens investigated by me. but to the fact that the description worked out bv me 

 above is based on the same material as formed the basis of this writer's description. (I cannot 

 understand how V. VA\ra was able to identify this species of G. S. Brady's with E. Chierchiae. 

 G. W. MttLLER, 1890 a without a re-examination of the original material.) The following 

 differences are noteworthy: Length of the shell in the female = 0,85 mm. The first antenna 

 of the male has a very long bristle (about as long as the whole antenna) dorso-distally on the 

 second joint; the female first antenna also has a bristle dorsally, but this is much shorter than 

 that of the male. (Does this , .bristle" corresjiond to the rod-shajied organ?) The end joint of 

 the endopodite of the second antenna has only two bristles in the female. The mandible has 

 a longitudinal row of hairs on the first and second endopodite joints (= the exopodite bristle?). 

 The furca has only five claws. (This is a good illustration of the uncertainty in this writer's 

 method of description!) 



V. VAvra's form E. Chierchiae, 1906, p. 29, has not been included as a synonym, first 

 because the description given by this writer is too uncertain to permit of certain species identi- 

 fication, and secondly because there are a number of differences between this description and 

 the specimens examined by me. 



P. T. Cle\e, in his work of 1905. p. 131, synonymizes Halocypris aculeata, Th. Scott, 

 1894, with Euconchoecia Chierchiae; no reasons are given for this. This synonymization was 

 accepted by Til. ScoTT himself in two later works, 1909, p. 129 and 1912a, p.588; this author 



