Sliidies nil mariiu' Ostrai'ods 62r5 



The great resemblance between V. VAxua's and my figuics df the male shell and the lod-shaped 

 organ ought specially to be pointed out. 



It also seems to me quite certain that G. W. MUl^ler's species C. oUnmja, 11)06 a. 

 comprises the species dealt with here. On the other hand it seems less certain that the material 

 investigated by G. W. MOller for this work was pure from a systematic point of view. With 

 regard to the shell this writer distinguished two forms, which he termed a and b, and the rod- 

 shaped organ in the males investigated by him was subject to rather far-reaching variation. 

 This is particularly noteworthy because neither C. Claus nor V. VAvRA mention any variation 

 although they had abundant material at their disposal; C. Claus writes, for instance, with 

 regard to this species . . . ,,die in zahlreichen Exemplaren untersucht werden konnte und zu den 

 am besten charakterisirten Formen gehort", 1891 a, p. 64, and V. VAvRA found and investigated 

 this species from no less than 39 different stations. 



Nor have I observed any variation in this species myself; on the contrary the specimens 

 investigated by me agreed well with the types described by C. Claus and V. VAvra, as I have 

 pointed out above; we must note, however, in this connection that the material investigated 

 by me contained only a small number of specimens of this species. I have nevertheless accepted 

 the definitions made by G. W. MULLER, because this writer put forward reasons (1906 a, p. 58) 

 that seem to support fairly decidedly the idea that we are concerned with a species with a rather 

 great amplitude of variation. 



C. Claus in his work of 1891 a, p. 64 identified the species Conchoecia variabilis described 

 by G. W. MiJLLER. 1890 a with this species; as C. Claus himself pointed out, however, this 

 identification was very uncertain because of the incompleteness of G. W. Muller's description. 

 In a later work, 1906 a, G. W. Muller himself accepted this identification, but with the reser- 

 vation that only a number^f the specimens investigated by him (1890 a) were identical with 

 this form. 



It is impossible to decide whether Paraconchoecia ublomja, G. S. BradY, 1897, p. 95 

 is identical with the species dealt with above. It is true that this writer gives a couple of figures, 

 pi. XVII, figs. 20 and 21, but they are so incomplete that no conclusions in this direction can 

 be drawn from them. 



This species is also mentioned in G. S. BisAnv and A. M. Norman's work of 1896, but 

 we only hnd here a translation of the information previously given by C. Claus. 



That Paraconchoecia oblonga, C. Claus, 1894 is not identical with the species dealt 

 with above is shown quite clearly both by this writer's description and his figures. This form 

 is, as G. W. MtjLLER has already previously pointed out, presumably identical with Conchoecia 

 procera G. W. MOller. For P. oblonga P. T. Cleve see the remark imder Euconchoecia Chier- 

 chiae below; for Conchoecia oblonga, G. W. Muller, 1890 a, see this writer 1906 a. 



The name Conchoecia (or Paraconchoecia) oblonga (C. Claus) is also mentioned in the 

 following places in the literature: C. Claus, 1893, p. 286, G. S. Bdady, 1902 a, p. 199 (— 1903, 

 p. 337 and A. M. Norman, 1905, p. 155), G. U. Fowler, 1903, p. 121 and P. T. Cleve, 1904, 

 p. 370 and 1905, p. 132. As no descriptions or verificatory figures accompany these statements 

 it did not seem to be convenient to include them in the list of synonyms given above. 



