IjII.IJKKOKu's st'ems, as fur as I can jiitl,m', to exist iki loiijffr. Tlicif arc on llir ntlitr liand, 

 |tanity|K' speciimMis botli limn Bnluisliin ami tlii' west coast ol Norway and Grt'ciiliind. TIk^sc 

 liave been investigated liv iiic a?id tlirir identity willi I lie I'orm dcsciihcd Ly nir aliovc 

 verified In addition I have investigated speciineiis caiigiit at the type-loeaiily nl 

 lJI.LJIOItoi{G's species, near Kullaherg in Skelderviken; these investigations too coiiliiiiietl 

 the al)ove identiiieatioii. 



It is, however, only the female of this species thatW. LlLl>J10HOJ<('. denotes by tin' name 

 of Ci/pridina globosa. The male is described afterwards under the name of PhUomedes longicornis 

 {j». 176). Which of these two names of species ought to be used? According to the Art. 28 c 

 in the International Rules for Zoological Nomenclature (Zool. Anzeiger, 1905), which reads: 

 ..Unter sonst gleichen Umstanden ist derjenige Name vorzuziehen, der in der Veroffentlichung 

 an erster Stelle angefiihrt wird", I have taken globosa as the name for the species in this work. 

 Synuiiymy. ^^y ga^j,^u States in his work of 1860 a, p. 200 that the species Cypridina excisa de- 



scribed by ^^'. Sti.MFSON, 1853, p. 39 from Grand Manan is synonymous with his Cypridina 

 Brenda and supports this synonymization by a personaL examination of Stimpson's specimens, 

 „tide specimens". Wliether this statement proves that this form of Stimpson's is identical 

 with the species described by me above is uncertain. The statements as to locale do not contra- 

 dict it; as will be seen below, I have found Ph. (Ph.) globosa common in Fortune Bay, New- 

 foundland, which is a locale near Stimpson's type-locale. Stimpson's original description and 

 figure are unfortunately too incomplete to permit of a certain identification. This synonymi- 

 zation would, however, make it necessary to assume that this author had committed very 

 great mistakes in his reproduction of the shell and I liave consequently considered it inconvenient 

 to adopt this view of Baird's. 



The chief reason why I — like a few preceding authors — have included Asterope groen- 

 landica, S. Fischer, 1855 — a form that has been incompletely and certainly very incorrectly 

 described — as a synonym of the species dealt with here is that the very abundant Ostracod 

 material I have had an opportunity of investigating seemed to indicate that this was the only 

 species belonging to the family C i/pridinidae that is found in Greenland — at any rate it is by 

 far the most abundant. It was first included in the genus dealt with here by G. 0. Sahs, 1865, 

 p. 110, and G. S. Bhady writes, 1868 b, p. 466 „and is either identical with, or closely allied to, 

 Bradycinetus Brenda". In his Naples monograph G. W. MtlLLER writes of this species, that it 

 ,,vielleicht" is a synonym of Ph. (Ph.) globosa. 



The reason why A. M. NORMAN's Philomede.; longicornis, 1867, p. 198 and 1869, p. 295 

 has not been included as a synonym is that this writer identifies this species of LnjLJi':BURG's 

 with Philomedes interpuncta (\V. Baird). Norman, 1861, p. 280 also has a form Ph. longicornis; 

 it is clear, however, from his accompanying figm-e that it is Ph. interpuncta and not globosa 

 that was before the author on this occasion. 



Nor are Ph. longicornis in the older works of G. S. Brady (and D. ROBERTSON) included 

 in the list of synonyms given above. This writer seems also in the beginning not to have dis- 

 tinguished between Ph. globosa and interpuncta; cf. G. S. BRADY, 1880, p. 154, where these 

 two forms are synonymized. 



