55 



entirely agrees with tliat in the adult animals, proves in a satisfactory way that my 

 suggestion with regard to the sexes is correct. One of the illustrated male pupae (fig. 3 k) 

 is fastened by a frontal thread, which is about one third the length of the body and conside- 

 rably dilated towards the end, but its extreme expanded pait is of a different quality and 

 forms a disk-like plate. In the other male pupa (fig. 3 i) the thread is shorter and some- 

 what thicker, but its distal end is broken off. The fixation of the female pupa is effected 

 by a thread, which is so short that the front part of the animal is pressed against the gill, 

 or the plate of the niarsupium, to which it is attached. — It is stated above that the pupae 

 have a well-developed mouth, and it would seem probable that at least the female pupae 

 take food and grow a little. Undoubtedly the males and females come out directly of their 

 respective pupae, Like the females of the species belonging to the group of Sphmr. Lnuckartii, 

 in ^\ilicll I have observed the fact myself Only one point seems to present some difficulty, 

 namely, that my male pupae are only 125 nnn. in length, whereas the male animals are 

 between -17 and -21 mm. long and of a similar shape. With regard to tliis point I refer 

 to my observation of the growth of the male of Sphar. paradoxa mentioned below on p. 57 — 58. 

 Homoeoscelis mimda. A single pupa (pi. I, fig. 3 b) was found hinged by a frontal 

 thread to the gill-bearing epipod. The pupa is -18 mm. long, of an elongate oval shape and 

 naked all over. We see the pouch-shaped processes in which the antennulae (a), the antennae (c), 

 the maxillae (f), the maxillipeds (g), the first pair of trunk-legs (m), the second pair (n) and 

 the caudal stylets (p) are developed; but besides all these, we notice between the second 

 pair of trunk-legs and the caudal stylets a pair of very small, most peculiar processes (x), 

 wliich are possibly a rudimentary third pair of legs that do not develop any further , and 

 which disappear again. The mouth with the mandibles is like the pupa of Sphar. Ari/ittsce 

 (s. below) ; the frontal thread is scarcely a fourth of the length of the animal, it is simple, 

 with a discoid expansion at the end. This pupa was hinged in the brancliial cavity between 

 two adult males attached in the same way, but there was no female, and these two circum- 

 stances make it more than probable that the pupa was a female, especially, as in a large 

 material of this species I have seldom found more than one male, and never more than two 

 males and one female in the same branchial cavity. Later on I found in two specimens 

 respectively two and tluee pupae, one among the latter of wliich — being no doubt younger 

 than the others ~ was somewhat smaller and had less developed rudiments of limbs, though 

 otherwise it was similar to the other four, all of wliich agreed with the above-described 

 specimen. (The frontal thread in one of the specimens was half as long as the body). 

 Considering that (as stated above) I have never found more than oue female and two males 

 in the same branchial cavity, the foirr large pupae must either all be males, or — which is 

 probable — be male and female pupae. So, judging from the sex of the minutely described pupa, 

 there is no difference hehveen the development of the two sexes, and this agrees very well with the 

 fact that recently hatched females can sometimes be distinguished from the males only by 

 possessing genital apertures, as in several males the spermatotliecae are not distinctly seen. 



