Shulirs oil iiiuriiir Oslratods 2U1 



kennon gelcrnt habeii, und es endlich unerkliirbar bleibt, wie der Mitteldarm in der Leibeshohle 

 suspendiert ist, fallt es schwer, diesen Mangel des Bindegewebes als tatsiichlich bestehend 

 anzunehmen. Ich nioclite deshalb auch hier einen Irrtiun nicht ii'ir ausgescldossen halten." 

 The correctness of the assumption that G. peUucida is a hirva of G. Agassizi may 

 be considered as pretty certain. Besides the reasons quoted above from L. LUdkus the 

 following evidence in favour of this assumption may be advanced here: 



Except G. Agassizi no form is yet known which can possibly be considered as the 

 sexually mature stage of G. j)elhicida. 



The two forms were captured at the same time and at the same locality. 

 In examining 11 — 12 mm. long larvae of my Atlantic species of this genus described 

 below I have stated that their seventh limb was characterized by the same small number 

 — about 15 — 20, i. e. about 7 — 10 on each side — of teeth of the end comb as this appendage 

 of G. peUucida. The number of the bells on the cleaning bristles of this limb was less than 

 in the sexually mature stage, none of these bristles was, however, quite without bells. It is, 

 however, noteworthy that cleaning bristles quite of the type that G. W. MULLEP. found in 

 a very small number on this limb of G. peUucida. in other words bristles ,,mit einfachem 

 pinselartigem Ende" (G. W. Mulleh, 1895, PL I. fig. 22), were found in G. MiiUeri, also 

 very, seldom, both on sexually mature specimens and on larvae. This type had. however, 

 obviously arisen by the distal part of the bristle having been broken off, the simple ,,pinsel"- 

 shaped point represented simply the proximal bell of the intact bristle. 



Whether G. peUucida corresponds to the first or second larval stage of G. Agassizi seems, 

 on the other hand, very difficult to decide. Its small length, 16 mm., compared with 

 the 21 — 23 mm. of the sexually mature specimens, certainly seems to support the idea that 

 it represents the second larval stage, contrary to G. H. Fow'LER's assumption. 



G. W. MtJLLER in his above-mentioned work (p. 165) put forward the assumption that A represeniaiim of 

 a representative of the genus Gigantoci/pris had already before been mentioned in literature. ""'^'^^^J'l^" '"'' 

 In a letter to Carl von SiEBOLD Richard von Willemoes-Suhm wrote that the „C h a 1- ..challenger"? 

 1 e n g e r" Expedition had caught an s t r a c o d with a shell of 25 mm. lengtii between 

 Prince Edward's and Crozet Islands (R. v. WillemoeS-Slilm : ,,B r i e f e v. d. (* li a II e n g e r- 

 e x p e d i t i o n." Zs. wiss. Zool. Bd. XXIV, p. XIII, Leipzig, 1874). G. \\. MUlleu also made 

 the same assumption in one of his later works, 1906 a. p. 136. A later author, L. Ll'DEHS, 

 1909, p. 103, repeats this assumption. 



According to a statement of W. T. Cal.max in a notice in Nature, vol. LXXX. 1909, 

 p. 248 the specimen to which WiLLEMOES-SUHM referred is still preserved in the British iluseum. 

 It is not. however, an s t r a c o d, but a species belonging to Leptostraca, Nebaliopsis typica, 

 described bv G. 0. S.\HS. 



ZooloB. bidi'ug, Uppsala. Suprl.-B(l. 1. 



26 



