726 Beady and Norman — Monograpli of the Marine and Freshwater Ostracoda 



1. Pionocsrpris vidua (Miiller), PI. lxiv., fig. 19. 



= Csrpridopsis vidua, Brady & Norman. 



The caudal rami in this species differ from the figure given by Sars of the 

 same organs in the Australian Cypridopsis globulus, G. 0. Sars, and the definition 

 of the genus requires slight modification to embrace them. Seen in situ from 

 below, they exactly resemble the same organs in Cypridopsis (as limited above), 

 that is, all that can be seen are apparently narrowly triangular rami ending in a 

 single, very long seta. But when a lateral view is obtained (and in consequence 

 of their extremely small size and their position it is not very easy to dissect the 

 rami out and obtain this view), the ramus is seen to be unusually deep in propor- 

 tion to its length, and to end in two very long subequal setae, slightly behind 

 which the dorsal margin bears a minute seta. We have not been able to detect 

 any third minute apical seta, but it is possible that there may be one. 



2. Pionocypris obesa (Brady & Robertson). 



1869. Cypridopsis ohesa, . . Brady & Robertson, " Notes on a Week's Dredg- 

 ing in the West of Ireland," Ann. & Mag. 

 Nat. Hist., ser. 4, vol. iii., p. 12, pi. xviii., 

 figs. 5-7. Separate copy. 

 . iidem ibidem, ser. 4, vol. vi., p. 15.* 

 . Beady, Ceosskey, & Robertson, " Post-Tert. 

 Entom.," p. 128, pi. i., figs. 1-4. 

 . . (Variety). Brady & Norman, '' Mon. Ostrac. 



Pt. I., Podocopa," p. 89. 

 . . Sars, G. 0., " Oversigt af Norges Crustaceer: 

 II. Branchiopoda, Ostracoda, Cirripedia " 

 (Christ. Vidensk-Selsk. Forhand.), p. 92. 



Sars has restored this form to specific rank. We have expressed our convic- 

 tion that it is only a variety of P. vidua, and have nothing to add to what may be 

 said on either side of the question, but give a list of the localities in which the 

 form obesa has been found. 



Habitat. — MuUingar Canal, Dublin ; Whittlesea Mere ; Rivers Nene and Cam ; 



* In this Paper Brady and Eobertson give reasons which seemed to them to make it doubtful whether 

 this form should be regarded as distinct, or as a variety of C. vidua. 



