84 TAOH SICOr.SHERG 



eincm Schroitfuli (urspriinglicli siclior iihcrall) zu ttniii. Dor crstoro tnuB kurz und gcdrungen 

 sein, cntspriH'luMul dom grolJoii Widerstand, deu or zu iiberwiiidt'ii hat; der zweite soil lang 

 gostrockt soin. Die Mandibulartaster hatte die heute von der 2. Antenne ausgeiibte Function 

 nicht iibernelunen konnen, ohnc cine Streckung und besonders ohm- cine Verschiebung seines 

 Ansatzpunktes zu erleiden. die niit seinen Beziehungen zur Nahrungsaufnalinic unvereinbar 

 geweseu wiircn." It does not seeni to be going too far if we say that this statement lias no scientific 

 value whatever. To illustrate the statoinont that the mandibular palp in the Cypridinids 

 must, on account of its digging function, be ,,kurz und gedrungen", I may, in the first place, 

 refer here to G. W. MCller's own statement, 1894, p. 47: ,,Wenden wir uns zum Taster, so ver- 

 dient in erster Linie Erwahnung sein groUer Umfang und seine freie Beweglichkeit, beidcs ent- 

 sprechend der groIJen RoUe, die er fiir die Bewegung spielt, wonach man die ganze Mandibel 

 als KieferfuB, KinnbackenfuB (Dana) bezeichnet hat", and, secondly, to the figures that have 

 so far been given for these limbs. If, for instance, we compare the mandible of Cypridina medi- 

 terranea (G. W. ^ICller, 1894, p. 45) with the second antenna of Eucytherura gibbera (G. W. 

 Mt'LLER, 1894, p. 35) we seem to be compelled to admit that the former is at least as elongated 

 and slender and fitted to be a crawling limb as the latter. That the mandible could not be 

 developed as a crawling limb except after a forward displacement of its point of attachment 

 had taken place seems to be a statement that it is very difficult for G. W. MOller to prove. 

 For further details I need only refer here to what has been pointed out above (under the mandible) 

 with regard to this matter. 

 Maxilla. Maxilla: — In the case of this limb too there does not seem to be anything of 



importance to remark about the assumption put forward by G. W. MtJLLER. The maxilla found 

 in a number of forms of the family Polycopidae is presumably of a very primitive type. In any 

 case, as will be seen from p. 31 of this treatise, the maxillae in Cypridinids and H a 1 o- 

 c y p r i d s may fairly naturally be derived from the simply built type of maxilla that is found in 

 Polycopsis serrata G. W. Mt'LLER (cf. G. W. MOller, 1894, pi. 7, fig. 51; reproduced in the 

 present work, fig. Ill: 1). An.epipodial appendage was probably developed on the coxale; 

 about the occurrence of this organ on this limb see above. 



In passing I wish to point out here that it does not seem to me improbable that the 

 mandible and the maxilla were of about the same type in the Protostracods; they 

 were probably moderately long, with powerful protopodites, and exopodites and endopodites 

 with rather few joints. It is not impossible that they had three more or less distinctly 

 separated protopodite joints, a two-jointed exopodite and a three-jointed endopodite. The 

 second antenna may also have been of about the same tvpe (of course apart from the fact 

 that the two first-named were possibly provided with endites), but this assumption seems to 

 me more uncertain than the former one; cf. p. 82. 

 Fifth limb. Fifth limb: — There seems to be greater uncertainty with regard to the struc- 



ture of this appendage in the Protostracods than with regard to the preceding limbs. 

 In the recent Ostracods this limb shows very different types. In the Cypri- 

 dinids — I leave out of consideration here the family Asteropidae, which is certainly 

 very much metamorphized, and also the family SarsieUtdae, in which this limb is 



