4ns r\i;i; sKO(;si;i;i!(; 



in form, hongth ',,4 iiu'li ( 1.7 iimi.)". Only one liiiiirc. tli^t uf ihc slicll seen Iroin tlic side, 

 arcoinpanios this jrtMU'ral ami incoinplclo ilosi'ription. trom wliicli it is only clear that a form 

 lu'longing to tlu> family Attteropidar was bofoiv tlu- writer. 'Phis figuri' shows an dviform shell 

 with its greatest height .somewhat liehim! tlic niuidle and the imsterior part oft he shell coinpara- 

 tivelv slightlv larger than the anterior |iart; the |ir(i|iiirt i<in ol the lenetli t(i the iiei^ht is 

 l.r>4 : I; the tlorsal and Ncntral niaiems are evenly eiirved. the Immer distinctly naire linldly 

 than the latter. 



These facts obtained from the original ilescription and figure seem to show with all 

 desirable clearness that Profes.sor G. S. Bhauv's identification of the specimen on which the 

 species 1 have described is based as A. teres (A. M. NORMAN) cannot be considered as having 

 sufficient proof to support it. 



Although this species of A. M. NORMAN's is based oidy on an incoini)lete investigation 

 of an empty shell, subsequent writers have nevertheless succeeded in identifying with it not 

 onlv forms that they have investigated themselves, but also forms incompletely described by 

 other authors and obviously not re-examined by themselves. Thus 6. S. BRADY and A. M. 

 NOR.MAN in their work of 1896 include this species and give the following forms as synon3''ms 

 of it: Cylindrolebereis teres, G.S.Bradv, 1867 and 1868 a and b, 1 Asterope oblonga, C. CLAtJS, 1876 

 and Cyiindroleberis teres, G. W. Mt'LLEH, 1894. — G. W. MOller also includes this species of 

 Norman's in ,,D a s T i e r r e i c h"; as synonyms of it are given: ? Bradycinetus teres, A. M. 

 Norman, 1867, Asterope oblonga and A. ovalis, C. Claus, 1876, Copechaete armoricana + C. fissa, 

 E. Hesse, 1878, Cyiindroleberis teres, G. W. MOller, 1894 and ? Asterope ocvlata, G. S. Brady, 

 1902 a. — 



As far as one can see these investigators have followed the principle of combining into 

 one species all forms of the genus Asterope which are characterized by having the posterior part 

 of the shell dominating more or less strongly over the anterior part. It seems certain that 

 this method of procedure can scarcely be considered justifiable and that it can only be explained 

 as due to these writers' deficiency of knowledge of these forms. A study of the species of this 

 genus that are dealt with in this treatise will show this quite clearly. Compare, for instance, 

 A. Miilleri var. longiseta, A. Ohlini and A. curta with the species dealt with above. These species 

 clearly show that forms quite obviously distinct from one another with regard to the limbs, etc. 

 may. all the same, show a striking resemblance with regard to the shape of the shell; i. e. that 

 in this range of forms the shape of the shell alone cannot be considered sufficient to characterize 

 a species. 



•It seems best, in order to avoid further confusion, to delete A. teres altogether from the 

 list of identifiable species, at least for the present. Only if a careful study of the Ostrocod fauna 

 at the t}^e-locality, Oban, Firth of Lome, Scotland, were to prove that only a single species 

 is found here with about the same type of shell as these forms w'ould it be proper, to adopt this 

 species name of Norman's again. 



The form described by G. S. Brady 1868 b, p. 465, under the name of Cyiindroleberis 

 teres (NORMAN) shows a very striking resemblance to the species described by me above with 

 regard to the shape of its shell. — On the other hand the resemblance to the species of 



