sreoml antrnna. 



JS4 I'AGE SUOUSliKlUi 



ceiluro ailuptt'il In (J. \\ . Ml'l.l.KH is nuito rorroct. The cliiiractcrs mi wliich C. ('l>Al s chiclly 

 based the gemis Ihiloci/fjiia, the clilfert'nt dovelupnient of tiio iDstniui nl tlie shell ami ol the 

 mastieatDry pad aiul the laneet bristles on the coxale of the mandible, seem to me to be of 

 so slight a nature that they constitute ([uite insuftieient ^nmiuls Im this classification. 

 tndofHxliir of ihf As is seen from the descriiitioii i;i\eii above tiieic is mi ilir end joinl ol the endopodite 



of the female second antenna a peg-like little process between two of the bristles on this joint 

 (more exactly between the h- and i-bristles). Tliis ])rocess, which eertaiidy corresponds to the 

 similarly situated peg- or bristle-like appendafj;e on the female second antenna in a number of 

 species of the genus Conchoecia (see, for instance, my fig. 8 of C. elegans) is noteworthy because 

 it has no homologon in the maturr males. On the other hand it is often lound in male larvae 

 of Stage I. The size and shape ol this process makes one inclined, of course, to homologize it 

 with the e-bristles (cf. the genus Conchoecia); a closer investigation shows, however, that these 

 appendages have quite different positions. The first is, as is mentioned above, situateil between 

 the h- and i-bristles, i. e. on the original third joint, the e-bristle is situated basally-anteriorly 

 of the f-bristle, i. e. on the original second joint. I wish to point out in this connection the little 

 process situated proximo-anterit)rly of the f-bristle in my figure 9 of C. elegans, S juvenis in 

 Stage I ; this process certainly corresponds to the e-bristle in the mature males. In this species 

 there is also at this stage a little process between the h- and i-bristles, which is of about the same 

 type as in the m;iture females. The same figure also shows that this process cannot be homologous 

 to the c- or d-bristles, which would, of course, be exceedingly improbable, because these two 

 bristles, like the e-bristle, belong to the original second joint. 



Halocypris brevirostris (J. D. Dana), 



? Conchoecia brevirostris -\-C. inflata, J. D. Dana, 1849, p. 52. 



? Halocypris injlata -\- H. brevirostris, J. D. Dana, 1852, pp. 1301 and 1303; pi. XCI, 



figs. 8 and 9. 

 brevirostris +H. Toynbeeana, J. LUBBOCi';, 1860, p. 16 (188) and 17 (189); 

 pi. XXIX, figs. 35—39. 

 ,, concha, L'. Clals, 1874 a, p. 177. 



1874 b, p. 7; pi. II, figs. 20—25, pi. Ill, figs. 26—35. 

 brevirostris, G. S. Brady, 1880, p. 166; pi. XXXIX, figs. 1—11. 

 ,, concha + H. pelagica + H. distincta, C. Claus, 1890, pp. 24 and 25. 



dubia + var. major, G. W. MUller, 1890 a, p. 269; pi. XXVIII, figs. 19, 23, 

 24, 30, 35. 

 ., conclia + H. pelagica, C. Clals, 1891a, pp. 77 and 78; pi. VIII, fig. 12; 



pi. XI, figs. 6, 7;, pi. XXI, figs. 1—11; 

 pi. XXII, figs. 1—12; pi. XXIV, figs. 6—20 

 and pi. XXVI, fig. 1*. 



* In the explanation of pi. X.W'I this species is narmnl Hdliirypn.i itlhiritiiii. 



