Studies on marine Ostracods 521 



small, about a quarter or a fifth of the anterior side of the first endopodite joint. The sixth 

 I i in h has 24 posterior ventral bristles. The seventh 1 i ni b has twelve cleaning bristles, 

 six of which are concentrated distally, three on each side, and six scattered somewhat proximally 

 of the former ones, three on each side. 



G. S. Brady and A. M. Norman's form Asterope Mariae, 1896, p. 6'M), is stated to have 

 been taken at a number of places along the coasts of England and Scotland. The male and the 

 female are described. The male seems undoubtedly to belong to the Grimaldi group. The female, 

 on the other hand, can only be referred to this group with a certain amount of hesitation. 

 Female: — Shell: Length 2,4 mm. The shape of the shell is the characteristic one for 

 the Grimaldi group. Second antenna: The endopodite has one short bristle distally 

 on the second joint. Mandible: At the middle of the dorsal side of the second protopodite 

 joint there is a single bristle, which is about as long as the dorsal side of this joint. The exopodite 

 is about half as long as the anterior side of the first endopodite joint. The second endopodite 

 joint has a long narrow bristle between the main bristles b and c. Male: — Shell: Length? 

 It is of the same type as is characteristic of this group. Mandible: The bristle situated 

 at the middle of the dorsal side of the second protopodite joint is like that of the female. The 

 exopodite is very short, only about a sixth or a seventh of the length of the anterior side of the 

 first endopodite joint. The second endopodite joint has no long narrow bristle between the 

 main bristles b and c. Sixth limb: (With regard to this and the following limb the text 

 does not explain whether the descriptions are based on male or female specimens). This has 

 25 posterior ventral bristles. Seventh limb (according to the text, not according to 

 the accompanying figure): The cleaning bristles are like those in the above-mentioned form 

 described by G. 0. Sars.* 



It seems to foUow from this review of these forms, which is perhaps too nmch condensed 

 on account of space: 1) that E. GRUBE's species Cypridina oblonga cannot be considered as 

 identical with A. Grimaldi and its variety or with any of the other forms discussed here, 2) that 

 A. Grimaldi and its variety cannot be identified either with G. 0. Sars' Asterope oblonga, 1887 

 or with A. Mariae, G. S. Brady and A. M. NORMAN, 1896, 3) that the relation between the 

 two latter forms cannot be decided with certainty; at any rate the females of these species 

 cannot be considered as identical; the males, on the other hand, seem to be very closely related. 

 4) G. S. Brady's species Cylindroleberis Mariae, 1868 b, must be considered unidentifiable. 



With regard to G. W. MUller's synonymization of Copechaete elorigata and C. affinis 

 I need only refer to the historical sketch of the genus, p. 434. 



It is certain, if we are to judge from these authors' figures, that J. A. (Jushman's species 

 Cylindroleberis Mariae, 1906, p. 366, Cylindroleberis Mariae, Cll. .JUDAY, 1907, p. 143 and 

 Cylindroleberis oblonga, R. W. Sharpe, 1909, p. 423. all American forms, cannot be considered 

 identical with any of the European forms dealt with above. With regard to CuSHMAN's species 

 I may point out: First antenna of the female: The sensory bristle of the fifth joint has no sen- 



• I may perhaps menlidii that I wroli' to Professor G. S. Brady lo ask whether the type-specimen of Baird's 

 species was in existence and whether he had examined il. II'- answered that lie did not know whether it still existed 

 and could not remember if he had investigated it. 



ZooloR. hidraK. Upp*ilii. Siipiil -lid. I. fi*"' 



