ee 
ENTOMOSTRACA OF MINNESOTA. Vite 
smaller forms have but few eggs (two). The young have a thorn on 
the angle of the fornices. Plate XLV, fig. 1, represents the ephippial 
female of this species. There seems no reason to doubt that this is 
only a variety of CO. scitula. The small form of C. reticulata mentioned 
by Kurz might be referred here, while the larger form with less promi- 
nent fornices is not so different from the American (. dentata, 
Ceriodaphnia nitida Schoedler. 
Ceriodaphnia quadrangula—Ley dig. 
This species seems to be characterized by the quadrangular form 
of the meshes of the shell-markings and the presence of teeth upon 
the claws. Probably invalid. 
Ceriodaphnia asperata aud CO. minuta of Moniez have remained un- 
known to me. Cf. Note sur des Ostracodes, Cladoceres, et Hy- 
drachnides observes en Normandie. Bul. @ etudes scientifiques de Paris, 
1887. 
Ceriodaphnia textilis Dana is not sufficiently fully figured to allow 
of a suggestion as to its affinities. 
Daphnia rotundata Say is very probably a member of this genus, 
though the description is hardly intelligible. ‘‘ Body rounded behind; 
upper antenne three-branched, a small spine above at the joints; 
lower five-banched; color white. Length 0.5mm.’’ It is probable that 
we should read ‘‘upper branch of antennz with three sete,’’ ete., in 
which case we may identify the above with Chydorus or the like. 
Ceriodaphnia setosa Matile. 
Matile ’90. 
Body spherical, resembling C. rotunda and ©. laticaudata, brownish 
red. Head small, depressed. Front uniformly rounded. A deep 
depression between head and body. Fornix moderate, spiny. Head 
and body ornamented with polygonal meshes from every angle of 
which springs a spine perpendicular to the surface. Antennz very 
short. Antennules rather long, lateral seta nearer the base than the 
tip. Post-abdomen large, gradually narrowed toward the end. Anal 
teeth seven or eight and nearly equal. Claw armed with a series of 
fine cilia. Eye large. Macula small. Length 0.42 to 0.57 mm.; 
heighth 0.27 to 0.36 mm. 
It is probable that this is identical with Ceriodaphnia echinata 
Moniez (’87, p. 512), but there are minor differences and the problem 
must be left open. 
