■I'.'ti TAiiK SKOOSHEnO 



;i<;nM'intMit with tho fiiiun>s <iivon in this trontisp; the luistlc-lx'nriim list had '211 — 'M spinos. 

 •First anti'nii;i: The houmhirv Iti'twi'on tlio fourth and lillh juiiits was like that shown in the 

 I'v^uTi} jjivon bv nu-. Similarly tho nuixilla afircod entirely with tli.it dl I lie species described 

 above. The dift'eren<'e I obscrvi'd lirtwcm ihr s|)r(imcn lidiii tlic Hay ol Najilcs that 1 investi- 

 gated and the t vpe-speeinien of this species with regard (o the liyalini' spines on the spine- 

 bearing list, the po.stero-di.stal bristles on the fourth joint of the first antenna, the basal spines on 

 the exopodite of the second ant(>nna and the medial cleaning bristles of the mandible (see above) 

 cannot be considered to stand in the way of this identilication, as these are cliaracters which, 

 as I showed in the description of the genus. I did not finil (juite constant in the species of this 

 genus. \\'ith regard to the postero-clistal bristles on the fourth joint of the first antenna 

 (J. W. MClleh's fig. 'Mk pi. 4 agrees well with mine, a fact which may, of course, be considered 

 to support this identification still further. 



G. S. Bu.MtY's and A. M. Norman's species Asterope teres, 18!»6. differs strikingly with 

 regard to the shape of its shell both from tlae former author's Cylindroleberis teres, 1808 b, and 

 from the species of G. W. MOller's discussed above. Nor does the latter author synonymize 

 these forms with each other, 1912. Consecjuently this form cannot well be synonymized with 

 the species described by me above either. G. S. Bhauy's and A. M. NOR man's description and 

 figures are of such a nature with regard to characters other than the shape of the shell that all 

 that can be said — due consideration being paid to probable and certain errors in observation 

 and drawing on the part of these authors — is tliat this form is presumably comparatively 

 closely related both to Brady's species, 1868 b, and to the form described by me above. 



With regard to G. W. Miller's synonymization of Copechaete armoricana and C. fissa 

 with forms that come into this genus see the historical summary of this family, p. 434 above. 

 For his synonymization, 1912. of Asterope ocidata G. S. Bl^ADY see the remarks under this 

 species in this treatise. 



On account of the absence of descriptions and figures nothing certain can be said about 

 the relation of the following forms to the species described by me above: Bradycinetus teres, 

 A. ^[. NORMAX. 1867. p. 198, Cypridina teres, G. S. BRADY, 1867, p. 208, Cylindroleberis teres, 

 G. S. Brady, 1868 a, p. 128, Asterope teres, G. S. BRADY and D. ROBERTSON, 1872, pp. 54, 70, 

 A. teres, G. S. BRADY and D. ROBERTSON, 1874, p. 115, A. teres, G. S. BRADY and D. ROBERTSON, 

 1876, p. 187, A. teres, A. M. Norman and G. S. Brady, 1909, p. 359 and Cylindroleberis teres, 

 0. de BUEN, 1916, p. 365. 



In connection with this question of nomenclature I wish to point out here, though only 

 in passing and as a curious fact, G. (). Sars's assumption that Asterope teres is the female of 

 A. Mariae (W. BaLRD). This assumption was put forward in his work of 1869, p. 357, obviously 

 under the influence of his discovery of the dimorphism in the genus Philotnedes (G. 0. Sars 

 1869, p. 355). At first G. S. Brady hesitated about this assumption, 1871, p. 295, but then 

 he adopted it altogether (G. S. Brad Y, H. W. Crosskey and D. Robert.'^on, 1874, p. 218); 

 in his later works he passed it over quite in silence. Other authors do not even trouble 

 to discuss it. G. 0. Sars maintains it, however, even in his latest work on these forms, 

 1887. p. 13. 



