tv»_' lACK SKIH'.SHIOHO 



at tln' same tiiiic 1>\' tlic autlmr just iiicntiDiicil; as far as I can sec tlicsf tliri'c arc also the mily 

 species of this group tlmt are IhuikI in tliis region (at least regularly an«l in any great number 

 (U. (). Saks writes of the occurrence of ('. rhyiuis ..iiaml fre(|uens in freto Drohakiensi . . .; 

 eopiosissinie vero ad insulas I-ofoteiises'"). These three sjiecies are of sueli well dillerentiated 

 tvpes that the descriptions worked out by the author mentioned are quite sufficient to distinguish 

 tluni. It is also to lie noted that the description and ligures given above are based partly 

 ox\ inateiial from one nt t he oriuinal localities — Lofoten — which was determined liy (i. < >. SahS 

 himself for ('. eleijann, anil partly i)n material from Kostcr. a locality situated rather near JJrebak, 

 one of the two other original localities. 



It is true that ani)ther species of the genus Cuncltoccut has been described from about 

 the same region, namely C. quadrangularis C. W. S. AURIVILLIUS (from the west coast of 

 Sweden), but this species is, as G. W. MOller has already pointed out, litol. p. 3, certainly 

 a synonym of C. elegans. It is true that I have not Ix-cn able to verify the correctness of this 

 identification by a re-examination of the original material, as this, as far as I could discover, 

 has been lost, but owing to the poverty of this region in Halocyprid species, a fact that has 

 already been pointed t)ut above, it is nevertheless very easy to decide this problem with full 

 certainty. An investigation of samples of plankton from the same localities and taken at the 

 same time of the year as Ai i;i\ ii.i.lUS's original material was captured showed that C. quadr- 

 anguloris certainly corresponds to larvae of ('. elegans. It seems difficult to decide which 

 larval stage or stages the author in (juestion was dealing with; presumably it was Stages I and II, 

 but this question is, of course, of minor importance. A detailed discussion as to which characters 

 in C. quadrangular is show the larval type and which characters decidedly indicate identity 

 with C. elegans would be superfluous. 



The identification of Paraconchoecia gracilis, C. Cl-AUS, 1890 and 1891 a with C. elegans 

 also seems to be quite certain. This identification was first made by G. S. BRADY and A. M. 

 NOR.MAN, 1896. Curiously enough, in spite of this, G. S. Brady adopts the name Paraconchoecia 

 gracilis in his later works, 1902 a and 1907. 



Most of the names taken up in the list of synonyms given above have no verifying state- 

 ments and drawings; these names are: Conchoecia elegans, G. 0. Sars, 1869; E. VanhOFFEN 

 1897; O.NORDGAARD, 1898, 1899 and 1905; C. W. S. AURIVILLIUS, 1898 and 1899; P. T. Cleve, 

 1900 and 1903; H. H. GRAN, 1902; Til. ScOTT, 1902 b, 1905 and 1912 a; P. T. Clevb and 

 PETTERSSON, 1903; C. H. OSTEXFELD, 1906; G. W. MOlLER, 1906 b and 1908; A. K. LiNIvO, 

 1907; E. KOEFOED, 1907; C. H. Ostenfeld and C. Wese.\RERG-Ia ND, 1909; C. Apsteix, 1911; 

 E. Jorgexsen, 1912; K. Stephexsex, 1913 and Paraconchoecia gracilis, G. S. BRADY, 1902 a 

 and 1907. 



All these statements, except those of G. W. MOller, G. S. BRADY, 1907 and Tli. Scott, 

 1912 a refer to finds from our Scandinavian and Arctic waters. Their inclusion in the list of 

 synonyms is due to the fact that in these regions — at least as far as we know — there is 

 no species found with which confusion seems probable. I have been able myself to verify a 

 couple of these statements by a re-examination of the original material; these were: 

 C. W. S. AURIVILLILS, 1899 {^ P. T. Cle\e, 1900; cf. p. 635 below) and P. T. Clene, 1903 



