57(> TACiH SK()C.Sl:i:i!('. 



is translrttod bv .,tho toothed odgo". Tho ,,proxitnal(' und distalf Zaliiilcisto" .,tho proximal 

 and distal toi)tii-lists'". Tlio ..Zaliiiplattt'" or ,,Zalui\vulst" is called in the pii'sciit work ,,thc 

 masticatory pad". 



This terminology diftVrs in a mmiliir of respects fi-oni that used hy (J. W. MOLLIOII. 

 Thus this investigator calls (1890 a) ,,the toothed edge" and tiie two tooth-lists sometimes the 

 first, second and third, sometimes the third, second and hrst ,,Zahnleiste" ; el', pi. XXVIII, 

 figs. 18 and *20. In tliis investigator's work of 1894 these parts are similarly called ,,Zahnleiste", 

 but thev are nut enumerated, in the genus Conclioecia „the masticatory pad" is divided into 

 two more or less well differentiated parts; the distal one of these is called by G. W. MOLI-Klt 

 .,Zahn", the proximal one ,,Wulst", both in his work of 1890 a and in his large monograph. 



In the present work the tei'in t u b e - b r i s 1 1 e is given to a distally blunt (somewhat 

 rounded) bristle with — in comparison to the side-walls — an exceedingly thin-walled distal 

 point; on account of this structural peculiarity bristles of this type have a somewhat tube-like 

 appearance, whence the name tube-bristle. The point of a bristle of this sort is, when seen from 

 the side, almost always furnished with two exceedingly short and fine points. (Only apparently? 

 Do these two spines correspond to a closed ring? On account of the smallness of these forms 

 I have not been able to decide this question with certainty. It does not, however, seem abso- 

 lutely impossible.) No terminus tecnicus has so far been found for this type of bristle, as this 

 peculiarity of structure has not been observed by previous writers. 



Upper lip: — The two comb-like parts of the postero-ventral edge of the upper lip, 

 which are furnished with a row of more or less powerful hairs, are called below simply the combs 

 of the upper lip. 



Which genus of this Remarks: — Wliich of the four genera belonging to this sub-family is to be considered 



sub-famiiyisthemost ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ primitive? It must be admitted that this question is exceedingly difficult, not to 



say impossible, to answer at present. They are all variations of the same theme and the variations 



are not profound. In this matter I have nothing to add to what has been said by G. W. MUller, 



1894, pp. 223 and 224. 



Transitional iorms j^q transitional forms between these genera are known. It is true that there are state- 



i^-nera. ^^^^^ about such foims, but these are only due to lack of knowledge about the forms in tliis 



group; as an example I may mention J. Lubbock's statement (1856, p. 34) that Conclioecia 



atlantica (LUBB.) is an intermediate form between the genera Conclioecia and Halocypris. 



Number of joints of There has been a certain amount of difference of opinion as to the explanation of the 



the first antenna in . . ^ i ^ • i y-i t ■ i rr i 



Conchoecia and jomts of the first antenna m the genera Conclioecia and tlaiocypris. 

 Halocypris. With regard to the first antenna of the males of the genus Conchoecia we find the following 



statements in the literature: G. 0. Sars writes 1865, p. 116: ,, antennae superiores .... in 

 mare .... distincte 4 articulatae". In this writer's work of 1887 it is pointed out (p. 71) 

 that this antenna is composed of ,,5 tydeligt begraendsede Led", i. e. of five distinctly defined 

 joints. — In C. Claus's work of 1874 b, we find (p. 10): ,,der Endabschnitt besteht auch nur aus 

 zwei Gliedern, neben denen freilich der obere ringformig abgesetzte Theil des zweiten Schaft- 

 gliedes den Eindruck eines dritten Gliedes macht"; thus according to this view this antenna 



