564 TAOK sKonsRionr. 



aiilstclK'ii miilJtt'ii. .Man siclit. wir nalicrn iiiis dciii Idcalr nianchcr Systciiiat ikcr, die 

 aus joiliT Art fiiio lu-sdiulirr l'"aniilic inaclicii iiKiililcn."" lie tlicii .sii}j;ii;('sts tliat tlic 

 familv Hiiloci/pridac slicmld lie dnidnl dinTtl\ into Imir ncnci'a: ( '(ihcIhh'cki. Halocypris, 

 Euct^uclinecia and Archiconchoecin. No ^roupiiiu ol tlic s|)t'cics within the Lifncra was nndcr- 

 takcn in this work. 



(;. W. AlCl.l.Ki;, in his inoiioiirapli on the (>stracods of the \' a I d i v i a expedition, 

 the most important work on tlie lld/nri/jinli'niit's altei' 1S!(4. deseribed a new and very dill'erent 

 Halocvprid genus. T/iauwafocypris. and put it as tlie soh' representative of a new sub-family, 

 Thaumatocyprinae, opposed to all the other II a 1 o e y |) r i d s. wliid: were gr<)ii|)ed into one 

 sul>-familv. Cmicfioecinae. This last snh-laniily was divided iiy this writer into the same four 

 genera as in his Naples monograph, namely Arcliiconc/ioccia, HiUucypris, (Umclioecia and liuamcli- 

 necia. The two first and the last of these four genera, which comprised a rather small number 

 of species, were not divided any further. \ s])litting-up of the multiform genus (Umchoeciu 

 (no less than 75 species of this genus are included in the work mentioned) was, on the other hand, 

 desirable even for practical reasons. G. W. MCl.l.Hi; writes on this in the work in question 

 (p. 5*2) : ,,.\uch gelingt es ja leicht, natiirliche Gruppen abzugrenzen iind wenigstens einige dieser 

 Gruppen scharf zu charakterisieren ((iruppe curia, rotundata, bispinosa), bci anderen Gruppen 

 gelingt entweder die scharfe .\bgrenzung oder die Charakterisierung der Gruppe nicht (spinijera. 

 magna, mollis). Gewohnlieh greift man in ahnlichen Fallen die leicht charakterisierbaren 

 Gruppen heraus, stellt sie als gleichwertige Gattungen der alteren, alle umfassenden Gattung 

 gegeniiber, in der man den undefinierbaren Rest belaBt, dessen Auflosung nicht gelingen will, 

 und der dann keine natiirliche (^ruppe mehr darstellt, auch keine scharfe Charakteristik zuliiLit. 

 Man vergleiche z. B. das Schicksal der Gattungen Cypris, Cythere und Cypridina. Auch der 

 Versuch von Gl.\i s, die (Jattung Cnnchoecia aufzulosen, gehort bedingt hierher. Seine neuen, 

 meist nur durch eine Art vertretene Gattungen repriisentieren natiirliche Grupjjen, die Gattung 

 Conchoecia umfaBt Vertreter verschiedener Gruppen; doch wird hier wenigstens der Versuch 

 gemacht, auch diese Gattung scharf zu charakterisieren. Ich lialte ein solches Verfahren nicht 

 fiir streng wissenschaftlich, habe deshalb von einer Auflosung in Gattungen abgesehen.'" 

 In other words this author protests against a division into new genera of the genus Conch- 

 oecia, but puts forward the possibility of distinguishing natural groups; no less than sixteen 

 such groups were established in this work. But he pointed out at the same time that it was 

 perhaps possible that a careful study of the limbs to which no attention had been paid ,,schafEt 

 die Moglichkeit einer voUstandigen Auflosung in Gattungen". 



This writer uses the same classification in his later works (1912), but does not divide 



the genus Conchoecia into groups. He was followed by some other writers, e. g. Cri. Jun.\>', 



1906 and T. R. R. Stebblng, 1910. 



Description of the Most of the works dealing with this group of animals are purely faunistic and descriptive 



of the species. The most important works on this subject are those of C. Claus, 1891a and 



G. \V. MULLER, 1906 a, b. c and 1908. 



Postembryonal 'pjjp main features of the postembryonal development of the Halocyprids have 



ile.-elopment. ^jg^Q^g nither well known bv C. Glat s's works of 1893 and 1894 and G. W. MtU.LKH's works 



