Stxidios on iiinrinp Oslrarods 131 



One of the reasons why I submitted this „law" to a fresh test was that a number a criticism ofG.n. 

 of the proofs given by G. H. FOWLER seemed to be altogether too good. Fowler's exposUion. 



As is seen from the account given above, out of all the H a 1 o c y p r i d s of whicli 

 two or three stages had been found by G. H. FOVVLER all except three, Conchoecia magna, 

 C. loricata and C ametra, agreed very well with BrOOKS's law. 



In the case of C. magna G. H. Fowler tried, as will be seen above, to explain this 

 deviation by assuming that the material investigated was not pure. This explanation is 

 certainly correct. Stage I (= Conchoecia macrocheira G. W. MtJLLER) and Stage II (= C. magna 

 C. Glaus) are (as is pointed out in the special part of the present treatise) certainly two 

 quite distinct species. > 



In the case of the two other of these three species the cause of the deviation is to be sought, 

 according to the same author, in the small number of individuals that were investigated. 

 Whether this explanation is correct for C. ametra I must leave undecided; it is to be noted that 

 the growth-factors obtained from the average lengths that were actually observed vary a good 

 deal; cf. above. With regard to C. loricata it ought to be pointed out that the material 

 investigated was presumably impure. Stage I (= Conchoecia ctenophora G. W. MUller) and 

 Stage II (= C. loricata [C. Glaus]) are presumably to be regarded as two closely related species; 

 cf. the special part below. 



All the other of these species agreed very well with BROOKs's law, as has been 

 mentioned above; these species were: Halocyfris glohosa, Conchoecia spinifera, C. elegans, 

 C. procefa, C. rotundata, C. curta, C. Haddoni, C. hyalophyllum, C. rhynchena, C. imhricaia 

 and C. daphnoides. 



In spite of this agreement it is probable that t li e m a t e r i a 1 of so m o 

 of these species was not pure. Thus in the case of Conchoecia curta Stage I 

 (= C. stigmatica G. W. MUller) and Stage II (= C. curta J. LUBBOCK) certainly represent 

 two well differentiated forms. The same is true of Stage I and Stage II of C. hyalophyllum; 

 Stage I = C lophura G. W. MUller, Stage II = C. hyalophyllum C. Glaus, Nor is it impossible 

 that a mixture has also taken place in the case of the larvae of C. rhynchena, as this writer points 

 out on p. 248 that , ,it is probable that C. kampta or C. tyloda may be the oldest stage of this 

 species". It seems to be beyond all doubt that C. karapta G. \V'. MtJLLER and C. tyloda 

 G. W. MUller are forms that are well differentiated both from each other and from C. rhynchena. 

 Both these species occur in the material investigated by G. H. FovvLER — according to this 

 author — only as mature individuals. Were there also larvae of these two species among the 

 larvae of C. rhynchenat For the reasons why C. stigmatica, C. curta, C. lophura, C. hyalophyllum, 

 C. rhynchena, C. kampta and C. tyloda represent different forms I shall only refer here to what 

 is written in the special part of this work. 



For Stage I and Stage II of C. rotundata the reader is referred to what is written about 

 this species in the special part of this work. The result of G. H. Fowler's investigation of 

 C daphnoides and Halocypris glohosa seems also to merit further verification. The length of 

 the first stage of C. daphnoides varied from 2,6—3,5 mm; only a single specimen of Stage III 

 was found and yet the law agreed perfectly! 



