t'4 TAOK SKOaSHBRr, 



Fiimilv I. Cjipridae, witli the sul)-fainili('s dyprinae and Cytherinae 



II. Hii/ocifpndac. .. ., ,, Cypridininae and Halocyprinae. 



This classiticatiuti mav l>o said to form tin' basis for the present system of the 

 ( ) s t r a c o d s. 



On the basis laiil down liy J. i). J)A\A G. (). S.-U^s went further. The classification used 

 bv this hitter author in his work ..() versigt af Norges marine Ostracode r", 

 I860, is particularly noteworthy, partly because it established two new main groups based 

 on forms quite or almost quite unknown to previous writers, partly because in this work the 

 names now used for the large main groups were used for the first time. This writer divides 

 the O s t r a c o d s into four main groups, comprising six families altogether: 

 Sectio I. Podocopa, comprising the families Cypridae and Cytheridae. 



,, II. Myodocopa. ,, ,, ,, Cypridinadae and Conchoeciad.ae 



III. Cladocopa. ,, ,, family folycupidae 



\\. P/atycopa, „ „ „ Cytherellulae. 



Most of the investigators who have worked in this field have adopted the foundation 

 of the Ostracod system as accepted by G. 0. Sars without any alteration at all. G. W. MOLI.RR, 

 who is undoubtedly our greatest Ostracod expert, has, on the other hand, somewhat modified 

 this system. In his large monograph on the Ostracods of the Bay of Naples he has 

 returned to the classification into two main groups adopted by J. D. Dana. ( )n p. 202 in this 

 work he classifies the Ostracod world as follows: 



Tribus I. Myodocopa, comprising the families Cypridinidae, Halocypridae and Polycopidae 

 ,. II. Podocopa. „ ,, .. Cypridae, Nesideidae, Cytheridae, Cytherellidae 



and Darwinulidae. 

 In other words, of G. 0. Sars's four groups G. W. MULLER combines Cladocopa and 

 Myodocopa on the one hand and Platycopa and Podocopa on the other. In his later works too, 

 even in the one published most recently, 1912, G. W. MtlLLER u^es this classification. Only 

 one writer has adopted his view, namely T. R. R. Stebbing in a work of 1910. 



Only one author, namely C. Claus, entirely rejects the main classification adopted by 

 G. 0. Sars. While G. W. Muller states in 1894, p. 188, that ,,die gesammten s t r a- 

 (■ o d e n sondern sich in zwei scharf getreimte Unterordnungen — Podocopa imd Myodocopa'', 

 we find the following statement in C. Claus's work of 1876, p. 97: ,,Sie" (Cypridinidae) ,,wiirden 

 den C v t h e r i d e n und C y p r i d e n des sUBen Wassers gegeniiber in eine besonderc 

 Unterordnung zu bringen sein, wenn nicht die marinen Halocypriden in der inneren 

 Organisation den Cypridinen nahe verwandt, im Bau der GliedmaBen unmittelbar zu 

 jenen beiden Familien hinfiihrten und somit als Uebergangsgruppe eine scharfere Scheidung 

 der aufzusteUenden Unterordnungen verhinderten". C. Claus also defends the same view 

 in his later works, e. g. 1891a, p. 6. We thus see that this writer divides the Ostracod group 

 directly into families. 

 hick of the sysf^ms Are We to Consider that any of these three authors, G. 0. Sars, C. Claus and G. W. 



, ' " P''^""'^ Muller. is correct? In other words which fundamental classification of 



thors IS the most 



natural? the Ostracods is to be considered most natural? 



