of the North A tlantic and of North- Western Europe. 719 



Professor G. 0. Sars was certainly quite right in removing the two preceding 

 species into the genus Cyclocypris. Our figures, Pt. i., PI. XL, figs. 15, 16, were not 

 correct as regards the setse of the limbs drawn, of which we now give correct 

 descriptions in the characters of the genus. 



Of what we called in Part I. Cypria Joanna (Baird), we know nothing, and 

 therefore do not assign it to this genus ; the doing so would very probably be only 

 giving another synonym. 



Genus Cypria, Zenker, 1854. 



Shell subovate or reniform, subcompressed ; valves punctate or striated. 

 Antennae five-jointed in female, six-Jointed in male, ungues very long, the setae 

 of the third joint, about five in number, excessively long, reaching very far 

 beyond the ungues. Mandible-palp with the last joint very long and slender, 

 4-5 times as long as broad. Lobes of first maxillae very short, not nearly so long 

 as the first joint of the palp. Second foot ending in two small setae of equal 

 length, and a third very long, which is reflexed upon the limb. Caudal rami of 

 moderate length, strongly built, ending in two moderately robust ungues, only 

 slightly bent at the apex, terminal seta minute, dorsal seta situated far back, only 

 a little beyond the middle of the ramus. Males common. 



1. Cypria exsculpta (Fischer). 



2. Cypria opthalmica (Jurine). 



3. Cypria lacustris, Lilljeborg MS. 



PI. Lxviii., figs. 3, 4. 

 1890. Cypria lacustris, . . Saes, G. 0., loc. cit., p. 54. 



Charact. Specif — C. ophthalmicce valde affinis, sed distinguenda test^ adhuc 

 magis compress^ et paulo humilione limbo antice et postice latiore et valde 

 hyalino. Animal sat pellucidum colore pallide flavescente maculis testae minus 

 distinctis et saepius omnino deficientibus. Longit. testae feminae "80 mm. 



Habitat in lacubus majoribus in profunditate 6—30 orgyarum. Sweden (Lillje- 

 borg) ; Norway (G. 0. Sars). 



Professor Lilljeborg has kindly sent one of us (A. M. N.) specimens of this 

 form. We can add nothing to Sars' description quoted above. The form certainly 

 comes exceedingly near to that of C. ophthalmica. Whether it is to be regarded as 

 a species or a variety is an open question. Some variation must be allowed in 

 species, and there is certainly considerable variation in many Ostracoda, for 

 example, in such common forms as Cypris fjiscata, virens, and incongruens. 



5H; 2 



