MamUhlc: In thr siil)-t'aiuily (^i/priflininas tlicic also sniiictitucs appears on llic 

 roxalo an oiulitc ot al)out tin- same ty|)(' as in tlic tVinalcs ol I'ln'/inncdrs, nainclv in 

 C rosso phonu'i. 



The maxilla and ilic liith liinh in tlic males of the <;('niis Plii/omedes do not lonn 

 any transitional typo to thi' san\(> organs in the m'nus Asteropc; tlu'V arc. on the contrary, 

 of (]uite the same type as in the females, with the only diflference that most oi the parts, 

 especially the masticatory jiarts, are very much reduced, a reduction that is closely connected 

 with the peculiarity that the males of this genus do not eat food after attaining sexual 

 nuiturity, but die comjiaratively soon after fertilization. 



Sixth limli: Tiic .statement that the different joints of this limb are not moved 

 by special muscles in the genus Philomsdes is also due to a mistake; at least in all the species 

 of this genus investigated by me this appendage possessed as well-developed a musculai' 

 svstem as the species of the sub-family Cypridininae that T have had the opy)ortnnitv to 

 study personally. 



Seventh limb: Tiic distal armament of this limb in Philomedes cannot be 

 said to form a transitional type between that of the sub-family Cypridininae and that of 

 the family Asteropidae; on the contrary it forms an independent type, strongly resembling 

 that of the sub-family Cypridininae. 



On the furca secondary claws. ,.Nebendornen", may also appear in the sub-family 

 Cyprulininae. 



The rod-shaped organ cannot apparently be used as evidence either for or against 

 a closer relationship between Philomedinae and the . A s t e r o p i d s, as this organ is 

 subject to far too profound variations within the sub-order Cypridiniformes. In addition 

 it shows but a rather slight agreement in Philomedes and Asternpe. 



The upper lip both in Philomedes and Asterope has a glandular field, though a small 

 one. The small size of this organ in these two genera may be considered a primitive featun*. 

 The characters that G. W. MtiLLER put forward as evidence for his hypothesis may 

 consecpicntly be divided into three categories: 



1) those in which (4. W. MOller was mistaken, 



2) those which cannot be used as evidence in this problem on account of their great 

 variability, and 



3) those which may possibly be suspected of appearing in Asteropidae and 

 Philomedinae under a comparatively primitive type. 



To the first of these categories the following characters would belong: the maxilla, tlio 

 fifth, sixth, and seventh limbs and the furca. — This author was also mistaken with regard 

 to the selvage of the shell and the glandular field of the upper lip. 



To the second category would belong the sculpture of the shell and the rod-shaped organ. 



To the third category: the selvage of the shell, the upper lip and the characters taken 

 from the protopodite of the mandible. 



It may be impossible at present to prove with full evidence that the charac- 

 ters included in the last category really bear an impression of primitiveness in Philo- 



