studies oil marine Oslracods 



583 



described that it did luit seem to nie einiveiiient to include them in the diagnosis of the genus. 

 In any case the restilt would be too uncertain to have any value. For these organs I refer to the 

 description of H. brevirostris given below. I need only state here that (as C. Claus has pointed 

 out) the basale on the mandible is relatively short, somewhat shorter than the total length of the 

 first and second endopodite joints, and is armed with a very powerful endite which occupies al- 

 most the whole ventral side of this joint. In addition the sixth limb is characterized by its com- 

 plete or almost complete resemblance in males and females. 



The rod-shaped organ is similar or almost similar in both sexes. — It is moderately 

 long, in most cases bent in a distinct angle; the part situated distally of the knee is longer than 

 the proximal part. Otherwise it varies in type. 



Special terminology: — First antenna: — The proximal one of the two bristles on 

 the next to the distal joint is called in the present work the a-bristle and the distal one the 

 b-bristle. Of the three bristles on the end joint the proximal one is called the c-bristle, the 

 middle one the d- and the distal one the e-bristle. (The e-bristle is the one previously termed 

 by C. Claus „Hauptborste" or „Terminalborste", by G. W. MOller „Hauptborste".) 



Mandible: • — The bristles on the pars incisiva of the first protopodite joint of this 

 limb, which were called ,,Stachelzahne" by C. Claus and G. W. MCller, have been called 

 „lancet-bristles" in the present work. 



Remarks: — Five species of this genus have been described (apart from the great Number uj species. 

 number of synonyms). These are: 



Halocypris globosa (C. Claus, 1874 a, p. 178), C. Claus, 



1891 a, p. 79; pi. XXII, 

 figs. 13—18. 

 Vlll, figs. 20—23. 

 V, figs. 8,9; pi. VIII, figs. 1—7. 

 VIII, figs. 8—12, 17. 



,, striata, G. 



,, cornuta, ,, 



,, bicornis, ,, 



,, brevirostris (J. D. Dana), cf. below. 



It is unfortunately impossible to give any detailed account of the relative positions of 

 these forms, as the descriptions of the species so far worked out are too incomplete to permit 

 of a detailed comparison between the forms. The best known are H. globosa and H. brevirostris. 

 These species were given by C. Claus, 1874 a, as representatives of the genera Halocypria and 

 Halocypris respectively. This classification is retained by this writer in all his following works; 

 his example was also followed by a number of other writers, e. g. G. W. MtJLLEli, 1890 a, 

 G. S. Brady and A. M. Norman, 1896, G. S. Brady, 1897. V. VAvra, 1906, is inconsistent in 

 this matter; on p. 62 he accepts this classification, but afterwards he only uses the genus name 

 Halocypris. The only writer who has definitely rejected this classification is G. W. MOller; in his 

 works of 1894, 1906 a, 1908 and 1912 he groups these two species together into one genus, Halocypris. 

 It is certainly very futile, as G. W. MIjLLER pointed out in this connection (1894, p. 223), 

 to discuss whether we are justified or not in establishing a genus, as this question is, of course, 

 quite a matter of taste, but all the same it seems to me beyond doubt that this method ol pro- 



Relations of these 

 forms. 



