178 TAOR SKOaSRKRO 



till* siniplt' stniitiin- of tin' [iciiis (cf., in iidilitiun. ilic rriiiaik^ undi'i' CiipntUnijurmcs 

 rtlxivo). 



In ;\ numluT <>f oflicr cliii meters it is, li()\ve\er. un(liil)it;il)ly cDiisidorablv nioi'c 

 tlivorgPnt ttian the latter iirdun. fur iiistanee witli I'ei/anl to 

 the first antenna in the feinak\ 



the (levelojiinent nl' th(> second exopodite joint of the fifth litnl) into a liniie tootli 

 and especially, 



the great sexual dimorpliisin, which is shown principally in the strongly reduction 

 of all the masticatory organs in the males. 



Under these circumstances it seems to me most convenient simply to follow G. W. 

 JK'LLEH in placing the siib-fanuly Cupridininae first. 

 /.< therf any Iran.-:- (_'an any of the fomis so far described be regarded as a transitional type between 



itional type hftn-etn ., . i f -i- « 



. , r, , , these two sub-tanulies? 



G. S. Bi^ady's assumption, 1898, p. 437, that the genus Pyrocypris {Cypridina, s. str. 

 sensu meo) wtnild form a transitional type of this kind is of course due merely to this author's 

 lack of sufficiently thorough knowledge of the forms belonging to it. 



As early as in his work of 1880, p. 158, the same author suggested that the genus Crosso- 

 phorus would resemble the genus Philomedes. This assumption has since been repeated by 

 G. 0. Sars, 1887,*p. 11. G. W. MOller, 1890, p. 226 expresses himself, however, more 

 cautiously in this matter; he writes: ,,Ueber die Stellung der GattungCrossop/iorwsBRADY wage 

 ich kein Urtheil auszusprechen .... Sars glaubt, daB die Gattung naher verwandt ist mit 

 Philomedes, wofiir auch einige Thatsachen sprechen wiirden." It seems at present to be rather 

 difficult to decide whether this opinion of G. S. BRADY and G. 0. Sars is justified. It may, 

 however, be pointed out that the characters by which Crossophorus seems to approach Philo- 

 medes are probably to be regarded as being comparatively old. Of these characters we may 

 mention here the absence of suctorial organs on the end bristles of the first antenna, the 

 development of the endopodite of the second antenna in the male into a clasping organ and 

 perhaps also the rather deeply bifurcated endite on the coxale of the mandible, cf. p. 171 

 above. — In any case the genus Crossophorus does not form any unaltered transitional type 

 between these two sub-families. 



As far as I know there is so far no form described which may be pointed out as 

 a certain connecting link between these two groups. It is, however, impossible to answer 

 this question with any certainty on account of the incompleteness and uncertainty of most 

 of the descriptions hitherto published, 



* See also C. Glaus, 1888, p. 151. 



