1V2 TAGE SKOGSBERG 



and certainly ijuito natural families Cypriflae and Cytheridae. — G. de RlVlLLE's work, a small 

 article entitled ,,JI e m o i r e s u r 1 a ni o r 1 \i in incus c" is noteworthy because in it 

 are to be found the first account and — for his time comparatively good — figures of a species 

 belonging to the sub-order Cypridinifortnes. The author, however, gives no name to the form 

 investigated bv him, nor does he try to classify it; he merely points out that it seems to him 

 j.ressembler .... des Puces d'eau"; his work does not seem to have given much stimulus 

 to new investigations; on the contrary it seems until recently to have been forgotten. 

 hors of ihe earlier During the earlier part of the 19th century, a rather great number of writers devoted 



VI of the I9ti, themselves to some extent to the study of the Ostracods, but they too obtained comparati- 



cenliiry. •' . 



vely insignificant results. As examples may be mentioned such works as those of L. A. G. Bosc, 

 1802, K. A. Ramdoiir, 1805, 1808, L. JUIUXE, 1820, H. E. STRAUS, 1821, A. G. Desmarkst, 

 1825, P. A. Latreille, 1829, C. M. A. KocH, 1837, H. MiLNE Edwards, 1840, A. Philiiti, 

 1840, and G. Zaddach, 1844. — Although most of the works during this period were purely 

 classificatory, devoted principally to describing species, yet as far as the natural classification 

 of the Ostracod group is concerned, scarcely any results were obtained beyond those arrived 

 at in 0. F. MI'ller's work 1785. — H. MiLNE Edwards' and A. Philippi's above-mentioned 

 works are, however, noteworthy because in them were for the first time scientifically denominated 

 and classified forms belonging to the sub-order Cypridini formes; in the former of these two 

 works the genus CypridiTui was established, in the latter the genus Asterope; the descriptions 

 of these genera were, however, exceedingly incomplete and, in addition, contained serious errors, 

 so that our knowledge of the forms belonging to them was but slightly increased. L. JURlNE's 

 ,,H istoire des Monocle s", 1820, may be said to be the most important of these works, 

 at least as far as comprehensiveness is concerned. In it are described no less than 18 fresh-water 

 C y p r i d s, and in addition it contains rather important statements about the oecology 

 of these forms, especially about the conditions under which they propagate. With regard to 

 the acuteness of both morphological and oecological observations, however, H. E. Straus seems 

 to be quite as capable as or even somewhat superior to the last-mentioned investigator. The 

 value of this author's above-mentioned work „M emoire sur les Cypri s", 1821, is 

 also increased by the fact that it was in it that the Ostracods were first separated from 

 the other Entomostraca as an independent group. 



About this Straus writes as follows 1. c. pp. 33, 34: ,,Les deux valves qui recouvrent 

 le corps des c y p r i s avoient fait illusion aux naturalistes, qui trouvant des parties semblables 

 chez les daphnia, les lynceus, etc., ont reuni ces divers genres dans ime meme famille, 

 quoique la difierence de leur organisation soit tres- considerable; je crois cette difference assez 

 grande, non-seulement pour considerer les c y p r i s comme appartenant a une famille distincte 

 de celle que j'ai etablie sous le nom de Daphnides, mais meme pour devoir former un 

 ordre nouveau dans lequel je place encore les cy there." On p. 58 in this work the name 

 ,,0 s t r a p o d e s" is proposed for the new group. 

 stracoda the right In passing we may discuss a problem of nomenclature which is rather important. We 



\e fort IS group? ^^^ that Ostrapodu is the name first given to this group. Ought 

 it to be kept? 



