Sluilics on inaiino Osliaiods lr)i 



equivalent to the sub-groups of the ( ' v p r i d i n i d s. A. Scott, 1905, and A. M. NOKMAN, 1905, 

 also employ the same classification. 



(i. \V. MUller, however, even in his later works, among others that of 1912, which to 

 some extent may be said to form a conclusion to an ejooch of the history of Ostracod 

 investigation, uses unaltered the fundamental classification that he worked out in 1894. In 

 this he is only followed by T. R. R. Stkbbing, 1910. 



Since then the system has been enlarged by a number of families being divided into a 

 greater or less number of sub-families. For this development I must refer the reader to the 

 historical resumes given under the sub-orders. 



At a very early date it was surmised that the Ostracods would prove to be one nesnipiwn nf ih^ 

 of the groups richest in species within the Entomostraca and time has not disproved this. Thus «/"*'""■■'•■• 



G. W. MCller in his synoptic work 1912 records no less than 1719 described recent 

 species. To judge, however, from the latest works and from my own experiences in working 

 out the present treatise, this figure seems by no means to be the limit. At the present time 

 there seems to be on the earth an Ostracod kingdom enormously rich in forms. Under 

 these circumstances it is, of course, absolutely necessary to take the utmost care in introducing 

 new forms into the literature, otherwise this will soon be c[uite unwieldy. This seems, however, 

 not to have been recognised by most of the investigators who have been occupied with the 

 systematization of the Ostracods. This may perhaps best be illustrated by G. W. Ml LLER's 

 statement (1912) that only 921 out of the 1719 species recorded by him could be considered as 

 ,, certain"; in reality the jiroportion between ,, certain" and ,, uncertain" species is probably 

 even more discouraging. This lack of care applies especially to the works of G. S. Brad^ , one 

 of the most productive authors in this departement. It must be admitted that most, almost 

 all, the descriptions of species that this industrious author has published are so incoinplete 

 and uncertain that they are quite insufficient for full certainty of identification. Instead of 

 advancing our knowledge of the Ostracods most of this author's work has only rendered 

 the study of this group of animals more difficult. But even the most eminent of our Ostracod 

 investigators — G. W. MUller not excepted, this applies especially to some of this author's 

 later works — can scarcely be acquitted of the charge of superficial descriptions. One must 

 admit, unfortunately, that the method of description of species witliiii this group is still at 

 rather a low level. 



Hemarks: — As appears from the preceding historical survey, there are, with regard y'lmrai s)/siem. 

 to the main lines for the systematic classification of the Ostracod group, three separate 

 and mutually opposed views present in the literature of the siibject, namely those of G. 0. Sars, 

 G. W. MOller and C. Glaus. 



According to G. 0. SarS this group is to bo divided in the following way: 



Sectio I. Podocopa, comprising the families Cyfridae, iJarwimdidae, Nesideidae, and Cytheridae 

 II. Myodocopa, .. „ „ Cypridinidae and Halocypridae 



III. Cladocopa, ,, .. family Folycopulae 



„ IV. Plafycopa „ „ ,, Cytherellidae. 



