172 TAGR SKOOSBKRa 



Cypridinid geuus Crus^aphorti^. pointcil out above as priimtivc), tlu' sliglit diftiTcntiution and 

 size of tlie penis and it-s shape like that of a biramous limb (what is the state of afiairs in 

 Crossophorus with regard to this is not known). 



From what has been stated above it may be clear that there are not adequate reason to 

 justif}' an assumption that Philomedinae is more closely related to the Asteropidae than are 

 other forms belonging to the sub-order Cijpridini formes. On the other hand, it is, of course, 

 by no means impossible that it is so. It does not seem to me impossible that those of 

 G. W. MOller's characters which were placed in the third category above and at least a few 

 of the characters put forward by me above really indicate a closer relationship between the 

 two first-mentioned groups. The fact that there is a possibility that these characters are more 

 or less primitive causes us, however, to use them only with the greatest caution as evidence 

 in this matter. 



The absurdity of G. W. MtJLLER's assumption that the family Asteropidae has arisen 

 from PhUoiiiedesAike forms in which the reduction of the maxilla and fifth limb appeared 

 in both males and females ought in point of fact to be so obvious to every one who knows 

 these forms intimately that a refutation in addition to that which has been given above seems 

 scarcely to be necessary. 

 Relationship On the Other hand, according to G. W. MtJLLER, loc. cit. p. 224, there were characters 



'""d i'<^-"i'^ '"" ^^ ^^ observed that seem to indicate a closer relation between Cypridina and Asierope; 

 these characters were: 



The first antenna: In Philoniedes this has six joints, in Asterope and Cypridina 

 seven; Asterope is, however, strongly difierentiated from Cypridina by the type of the 

 joints „wahrend in Bezug auf Schlankheit wieder Philomedes in der Mitte steht". 



Gnis, which are characteristic of Asterope, occur, although rarely, in Cypridina 

 but, on the other hand, are never found in Philomedes; this last- mentioned fact loses — 

 according to this author — in importance, however, if we assume that gills were character- 

 istic of the ancestral forms of the sub-ordo Cypridiniformes. 



It must be clear to every one who has closely studied the last-mentioned group that the 

 number of joints on the first antenna caimot be used to support an assumption that the 

 Asteropids approach the sub-family Cypridininae. The number of joints is, in reality, 

 not infrequently different in males and females of the same species of these groups. The im- 

 portance of the gills for the solution of this question may be said to be very small; these simple 

 organs may very well have developed by convergence in Cypridininae and Asteropidae. 

 Relationship beween According to G. W. MtJLLER's statement, 1890, the genus Sarsiella also resembles 



'^*'* "^ "des Philomedes. The characters brought forward to support this assumption are as follows (p. 226) : 



,,In einigen Pimkten erinnert sie an die Mannchen von Philomedes, so 

 im Fehlen des Kauiortsatzes der Mandibel imd 

 im Bau der zweiten MaxiUe. 



Beachtenswerth erscheint die Reduction der Glieder der ersten Antenne, 

 das Fehlen jeder Gliedenmg am MaxiUarfuB, 

 das Auftreten von erhabenen Leisten auf der Oberflache der Schale." 



