Shiilics (111 iiiiiriiif ()stra(u(l.> 617 



here aiv too small to ciiablr us to ascribe any great importance to tlieiii. In this connection I will 

 only quote G. W. Muller's statement, 1906 a, p. 52: „Der Versuch vonCLAU.s.denBaudesKaufort- 

 satzes der Mandibel einerweiterenEinteilungzuGrundezulegen, schcintmirnichtdurchfiihrbar." 



These writers have not taken other organs into consideration in making this classification. 

 Puiely tfom the point of view of habitus this group includes rather heterogeneous elements; 

 cf., for instance, C. cauclata, C. dasyophthalma and C. oblonga. 



Is not C. decipiens, for instance, which belongs to the Procera group, considerably more 

 closely related to C. oblonga than the latter is to, for instance, C. dasyophthalma or C. caudata'i 



As has been pointed out above, no answer as to the naturalness of this group can yet 

 be given. For this a new and comprehensive investigation of the species in it is necessary. 



Conchoecia oblonga (C. Claus). 



Paraconchoecia oblonga, C. Claus, 1890, p. 13. 



Conchoecia variabilis (part.), G. W. Mullek, 189U a, p. 273; pi. XXVIII, figs. 27 and 38. 

 Paraconchoecia oblonga, C. Glaus, 1891a, p. 63; pi. VIII, figs. 10 and 11; pi. IX. 

 Conchoecia oblonga, G. W. MUller, 1906 a, p. .58; pi. IX, figs. 11—13, 16—25. 



„ „ „ 1906 b, p. 3. 



V. VAVRA, 1906, p. 38; pi. II, figs. 21—28. 



G. W. MULLER, 1908, p. 66. 



., ., „ 1912, p. 69. 



(Non Paraconchoecia oblonga, C. Claus, 1894, p. 3; P. oblonga, P. T. Gleve, 1900, p. 4(t 

 and Conchoecia oblonga, G. W. MULLER, 1890 a, p. 272.) 



Description: — See G. Glau.s, 1891a, p. 63 and G. W. MCLLLl;, 1906 a, p. 58. 



Supplementary description: — Male: — 



Shell: — Length, according to G. W. MtlLLER, 1906 a, ..ziemlich konstant 1,45 mm.", 

 according to V. VAvra, 1906, 1,2 — 1,3 mm. The lengths of the specimens investigated by me 

 varied between 1,40 mm. and 1,6 mm. Length : height about 2,3 : 1; length : breadth about 

 2,3 : 1. 8 e e n f r o m t he side it has about the same type as is reproduced in the accom- 

 panying figure 1, i. e. the posterior part of the shell is not larger than the anterior part. \\'itli 

 regard to this characteristic the specimens investigated by me differed from the type reproduced 

 by G. W. MOller, 1906 a, in pi. IX, fig. 11. (This figure certainly represents a female, but 

 G. W. ML'LLER does not mention the existence of any difference between the sexes in this 

 respect; cf. imder the description of the female shell below.) On the other hand the 

 figure of the male shell in this species given by C. Claus, 1891 a, pi. IX, fig. 9 agrees in this 

 respect with the type foimd by me. S e e n f r o m b e 1 o w, fig. 2. it has its greatest breadth 

 at or just in front of the middle, its side contours are miiformly curved, it is broadly rounded 

 anteriorly with a rostrum that is almost symmetrical, and is pointed posteriorly. The shoulder 

 vault is always powerful, but was never sharp-edged in the specimens investigated by me. The 



Zoolog. bidrag, Uppsala. SuppI.-BJ. i. <^ 



