VM) * T\(ii; sKO(;sm:i!ii 



alloin jii'zoii'hnot, or finilot sirh in uIcicluT Form z. H. lici Ci/pn<li)i(i asijmmctricn, die cigon- 

 thiimlioh knotifio Bewiiffnung dcr Znhiihorslcii di's I. Tlioraxhcinos ('2. Maxillc) diirfto dus 

 Rosultat oinor porsptH'tivisrlion Vcrkiirziing scin, licini L'. Maxillarl'iiLi diirl'tcii sicli die beidon 

 dickon nach hinten gerichteten Borston (vorgl. Tat'. (>, Fii;. 7) dcrai l aniinandcrgolofitt haben, daB 

 sie fiir tMucn obcrlliU'ldiclien Boobaclitcr wic ciii Fortsatz crschcincn. Wollm wir die IVagliche 

 Form aiis dor Gattung Cypridina ontlVriicii. woliir allcrdiiigs Bl^ADY's Diagnose keinerlei Anlialt 

 gewiihrt, so niiisson wir sie niit Monopin vereinigen, docli niiiBtc daiin die Diagnose dieser 

 Gattung ganz anders lauten."" 



Is Cypridiiia. in the conception that G. W. MflLl-r;ri lias given to tliis genus, to be regarded 

 as a classificatorv unit as homogeneous and as well-defined as the other genera of this sub-family? 



The ineompleteness and iiicniTectness that are characteristic of the descriptions of the 

 majority of the species belonging to this genus result in oui- being able at present to submit 

 these forms to only a comparatively superficial comparative investigation. But even a rather 

 superficial study of them is, however, sufficient to show us that this genus comprises rather 

 heteroeeueous elements. It seems to have been a sort of lumber-room in which were thrown together 

 all the forms that it was impossible to arrange under any of the genera Crossop/torMs, Pyrocypris, 

 GigatUocypris and Codonocera. — G. W. MtlLLER himself has pointed out the unnatural character 

 of this genus and the urgency of splitting it up into smaller systematic units. Statements 

 pointing in this direction are found both in this author's work of 1906 a (p. 130) and in that 

 of 1906 b (p. 13). In the former we read (loc. cit.): „Die Gattung umfaRt auch nach Aus- 

 scheidung einiger aberranten Formen noch recht heterogene Elemente. Eine Auflosung der 

 Gattung in natiirliche Gruppen erscheint dringend erwiinscht, aber zur Zeit nicht durchfiihrbar." 



Is there any form or forms that can be said to contribute more than others to making 

 this genus heterogeneous? 



This qiiestion nnist be answered in the affirmative. 



Cypridina asymmetrica G. W. Muller is in a great number of the characters of the 

 shell, maxilla, sixth and seventh limbs, furca and upper lip decidedly opposed to the great 

 majority of the species included '\\\ this genus. To this species Cypridina Bairdi G. S. BRADY 

 and C. favus (G. S. Brady) (= Cypridinodes favus) certainly appear to be rather closely related. 

 Unfortunately these two species are very incompletely known. In C. Bairdi we only know, 

 out of the organs in question, the shell, maxilla and furca, and these show very great agreement 

 with the corresponding organs in C. asymmetrica. In the case of C. favus we know, out of the 

 organs mentioned, the shell, maxilla, sixth and seventh limbs and the furca; of these the shell 

 (as I myself have verifi^ed during my re-examination of the type-specimen of tliis species; see 

 below, note on the sub-genus Cypridinodes) the maxilla, seventh limb and furca show close 

 agreement with the corresponding organs in C. asymmetrica; th(^ differences with regard to the 

 sixth limb are, as G. W. Mi'LLER has pointed out, probably due to incorrect observation on the 

 part of G. S. Brady. These three species certainly constitute a distinct and quite 

 natural group. G. W. MtJLLER seems already to have verified this; in this investigator's 

 work of 1912 these three forms are placed together. To place them in the genus Cypridina 

 (.sensu G. W. MUlleri) seems undoubtedly to be a mistake. 



