studies on marine Oslracods 489 



A. M. Norman's discussed above is consequently far from striking. — Nor do the description 

 and the figures of the limbs, pi. 41, figs. 2 a — d, form any direct argument — if we leave out 

 of account obvious mistakes in observation and drawing — against this form of G. S. Brady's 

 being possibly identical with the species described by me above. AH the same I have not carried 

 out this synonymization, as is seen above, as it would in any case be so uncertain as to have 

 practically no scientific value. 



C. Claus, 1876, p. 93, writes that this form described by BRADY, is ,,wahrscheinlich" 

 identical with a species found by him at Trieste, which he also identifies with E. GRUBE's 

 Cypridina oblonga*. Both G. W. MtJLLER and G. S. Brady and A. M. Norman justly rejected 

 the latter identification without further discussion, but these writers seem to liesitate a little 

 more about the correctness of the former identification. It will be seen above that the two 

 later writers, 1896, add a query to this synonymization and so does G. W. MiJLLER as well, 

 1894, p. 220; this was, however, deleted by G. W. MUller in 1912, as is seen above. Claus 

 does not give in the text any information about the shell of the species dealt with by him, but 

 adds a figure of the shell as seen from the side. This figure shows an oviform shell witli its greatest 

 height just behind the middle; the proportion of the lengtli to the height is 1,55 : 1; the posterior 

 part of the shell dominates very slightly over tlie anterior one; the dorsal and ventral margins 

 are evenly and almost symmetrically curved. The limbs are reproduced and described, but 

 in such general terms that it is impossible to identify the species with certainty. It seems 

 to follow from this that this form cannot very well be adopted as a synonym of the species 

 described by me above. Nor can it be identified witli any other of the forms dealt with here 

 without disregarding the facts. 



As is seen above, I liave identified the species described by me above with 

 G. ^\'. Muller's species (Jylindroleheris teres, 1894. This identification is not based on 

 G. W. MtJLLER's description and figures. It is based instead on an investigation I made of a 

 specimen from the Bay of Naples, which Prof. G. W. Mt'LLER had determined as Cylindro- 

 leberis teres and which was kindly placed at my disposal by this investigator. On the contrary 

 G. W. MUller's description and figures show not a few differences from the type-sj^ecimen 

 described by me above. According to this the Bay of Naples form is distinguished by a shell 

 only 1,24 mm. long; the shape of its shell, to judge from pi. 8, fig. 5, differs from the form 

 described above, though only in details; the spine-bearing list has only 25 hyaline spines. First 

 antenna: The boundary between the fourth and the fifth joints is not slightly concave, but forms 

 a sharp, almost a right, angle. Maxilla: This has a strongly reduced epipodite; without any 

 dorso-proximal bristle and without the short ventero-distal bristle on the basale; the proximal 

 endite has no short bristle; the baleen bristles are blunt distally. — In all these characters the 

 specimen from the Bay of Naples investigated by me closely agreed to the species described 

 above. Its shell was 1,41 mm. long** and with regard to the shape of the shell it showed complete 



* Claus writes, p. 93 rem. ;! Asteropc oi'alis in tiic description of tliu loi'ni found by liim, but tliis seems, as far 

 as one can judge, to be a slip of tiie pen. 



** II will be seen that I have not adopted G- W. Muller's statement of the length, 1,24 mm. in my description' 

 of the species, as it does not seem impossible that this is incorrect, that there has been a printer's error, a reversal 

 of the two last figures. 



Zoolog. bidraK, Uppsala. Suppl.-Bfl 1. 62 



