:\\6 TAi'.M sK()(;siii:nc; 



bolonps to the abovo-montionod tronu-^ Pi/rnri/prh. althouiih i>v(>n on I his point it may be 

 impossiblo ti) got full evidence. 



This assumption is supported In- tlu' Inllowino; reasons: 



First there is the fact lliat Ci/pridina Reynavdi lias I lie same characteristically 

 elongated type of shell as distinguishes Pyrocypris. 



Secondly there is nothing in MiLXH Edwards's description against this identification, 

 apart, of course, from statements that are obviously due to mistakes in observation on the 

 part of this author, such as, for instance, the absence of the rostral incisur. 



In addition, a reason that is — in my opinion — rather strong is to be foiind in the 

 statement as to the locality of the find: The species in question was captured in the Indian 

 Ocean. — Several species of Pyrocypris occur in this ocean, some of them even in enormous 

 numbers. As an example of this it may be mentioned that no less than 20 000 specimens 

 of P. Chierchiae were caught in these regions in a single haul (G. W. MOllkh, 1890, p. 2.S2). 

 To this it may be added that species of this group attract attention by their intense phos- 

 phorescence, and, on account of their pelagian life, are very easy to catch, reasons that must 

 of course be taken into account when we are dealing with a form that was apparently captured 

 quite accidentally. 



On the other hand, of all the specimens to which G. W. MOller, 1912 etc. and other 

 authors applied — apparently arbitrarily — the name Cypridina, it may be said with very 

 great probability that they are not closely related to Cypridina Reynaudi. 



As no other forms either — except those belonging to Pyrocypris — are known so far, 

 which can witb any great probability be considered as closely related to the species described 

 by Milne Edwards, it seems to me justifiable and convenient to use the name Cypridina for 

 the last -mentioned group of forms. 



As the t}'pe species of this sub-genus it may be convenient — in accordance with the 

 above-quoted statcjment — to take the species investigated by W. Lilljeborg. Identifiable 

 material of this form (four specimens) is still preserved in the collections of the Zoological Museum 

 of the University, Uppsala. 



It may, on the other hand, not be appropriate to give this species the name Reynaudi 

 Milne Edwards; Lilljeborg's identification is evidently too uncertain. — Do the specimens 

 investigated by Lilljeborg belong to a species that has been mentioned and described later? 

 As far as I can decide, they seem to belong to Pyrocypris inermis G. W. MOller. I cannot, 

 however, be quite certain on this point on account of the incompleteness of this species of 

 MCller's. 



If my identification is correct, P. inermis would thus be coveniently taken as the type 

 species of the sub-genus Cypridina. 

 Diagnosis of the In G. W. MOLler's diagnosis of the genus Pyrocypris it is stated (both in 1906 b, p. 16 



and 1912, p. 16) that the equipment of the distal bristles of the male first antenna in this group 

 agrees with that in the genus Cypridina (sensu MULleri), and also that the endopodite of the 

 second antenna is furnished with four or five bristles. — With regard to the former character 

 it is to be noted that in the sub-genera Vargula, Macrocypridina and Cypridinodes, in other 



sub-genus. 



