Sludies on iiniiiin' OstracoiJs 



39 



below. C. Glaus wrote in 1876, p. 94, of this limb that it „seine fuBahnliche Form erhalten 

 hat". If by this statement C. Claus meant that this limb had retained a number of primitive 

 characteristics, he has certainly committed a fundamental mistake. This limb is imdoubtediy 



Fig. IV. — The fifth liml); according to ,,the lir.st, niolhod of Pxplanation". 1. Poli/copfi freqiiens G. \V. .AIuLLEr. 



2. Sarsiella ca;).'?(/ta A. M. Norm.\.n. :>. Cypridina medilerranea 0. Costa, juveni.s; from beliind. 'i. The same linil) from 

 before. 5. Aaleropc oblnnga Gm Bn. 6. Conchoecia. 7. Macrocypiis. 8. Cylherella snrdida G. W. MCllek j. (Figs. 1. 



3, 4, 6 and 8 from G. W. Miller, 189'i; figs. 3, 4 and 6 are somewhat modified. Figs. 2 and 5 from G. O. Sars, 188T. 



no. .5 is soniewliat modified. Fig. 7 is drawn liy me from nature.) 



to be regarded as very much modified. This far-reaching modification and the total lack of 

 known transitional forms makes any attempt at homologization merely a caprice, at worst 

 obviously incorrect, at best unverifiablc. 



