4.'U T\i'.i: ^uoc.sr.Kif'^. 



woro in sovoral ivspocts closely rclalt'd to tlic ;>;tMius Cifpridiiia. in otluMs to Astrropc. ,,l''rom 

 this inixturo of tlu- rliiinictiTs of tlw two Lii'iifni. mikI tiilciiig into coiiMdciatioii t lir iiiiimtrncss 

 of tlu' parts oxainiiunl. ami the (lilltrcni a[i|ii'araiirc these same parts assunic in (lilTcrent 

 positions inuh'r diflfereiit microscopes and with dilTcrcnt dlisiTvcrs. I am inclined to liclicvc 

 these two genera to be identical." In his work of IS'Wia \\ . Haihii says. p. ITH. that he is 

 following the authority of .1. D. I)\\\ in synonyniizing these two genera; he writes: .,fid(> 

 Dana in Uteris'".* Finally l'\ Mil I i:i; also uses the generic name Ci/pridina for species 

 belonging here in his essay .,H c ni c i k u n g c n ii 1) c r ('i/pniiind", 1870, a work whi<'li is 

 to some extent rather meritorious and which is based on t he dissection of three C y p r i d i n i d s 

 (one species belongiitg to the geiuis I'liilomedes and two species l)eh)nging to the lamil\- Astcni- 

 pidac). This author writes on p. 25;"): ..Ich hehalte liir aHe diei. wie iiherhaupt fiir alle Muschel- 

 krebse, die seitliche Augen und die bokannton ..goringelten Aidiiinge" besitzen, den Namen 

 Ciipridina bei." F. Mri.LHn explains this point of view by stating that the anatomv of all 

 the species then described was too inadc(|uately known to permit of a scientifically founded 

 division of the forms belonging to this unit into smaller systematic units. 



CJ. O. Saus, in his work of 1865, j). loii. points out that Asterope must be considered 

 as a special genus, w(>ll distinguished from other C y p r i d i n i d s. 



Hint,- A.-ierop,\ (J, §_ Bh.-vdy, in his Work 1868 a. p. 127, established a new genna Cylindrnleheris, which 



included two species previousl}' grouped under the genus Cypridina, C. Marine W. Baikd and 

 C. teres A. M. NoRMAX. Brady did not, however, retain this new generic name long; already 

 in his work of 1871 he identifies (p. 292) the genus Cylindroleberis with Asterope PlllLlPPi and in 

 all his subsequent works we only find the latter name. In spite of this a number of investigators 

 who afterwards dealt with forms belonging to this unit have nevertheless retained the name 

 Cylindroleberis. thus, for instance, G. W. MuLLKH in his works of 1893, 1894, 1906 b and 1908 

 (not 1890, where he uses the generic name Asterope), J. A. Cl.silMAX, 1906, Cll. Ji day, 1907, 

 R. W. SlIARPE, 1909 and Til. Stebbing, 1910. The reason for this is to be found in the fact 

 that in the same year (at the same time?) as A. PlliLii'l'i published his essay on the genus 

 Asterope two other investigators (MUller and Troschei.) described a now Echinoderm genus 

 under the .same name. As. however, according to modern nomenclature, the generic name 

 Asterope cannot be used for the Echinoderm genus established by the two latter authors, this 

 difficulty may be considered to have disappeared. Accordingly in the present work I considered 

 it convenient to follow G. S. Brady's example — as G. W. MOller did in 1912 — and use the 

 name given by A. Philippi for this genus. 



ropechn,-ie. The genus CopecJmete, E. Hesse, 1878 may be briefly dealt with here. This genus was 



identified by G. 0. Sars, 1887, p. 13 with the genus Asterope Pllli.lPPi: „At den af Hesse under 

 Benae\Tielsen Copechaete opfarte Slaegt er identisk med Asterope, er utvivlsomt".** G. S. Brady 

 and A. M. Xor.MAN, 1896, adopt this name as ,, undoubtedly" synonymous with Asterope, ,,but 

 what his species are it is impossible to say". G. W. Muller goes still farther; in 1912, pp. 45 



* .J. D. Da\a himself writes, 1852, p. 121X1. about llip genus Ci/priflimt: ..It appears to imludr Die Asti'mpr of 



PlMLII'PI."" 



** ..11 is certain tlial fho genus establi^ln'il liy IIksse Mliilei- llie name nf Co/jcr/imir is jiieiilirai willi .Isli'iu/)/;-' 



