studies oil nuiiine Osli'iuods 665 



This is about one and a half times the length of this limb or somewhat longer. The simple sen- 

 sorial filament, the d-bristle, is in most cases not quite a tliird of tlie length of the e-bristle. 

 All the joints are bare. 



Second antenna: — Protopodite: In specimens with shells 0,7 mm. 

 long this measured about 0,25 — 0.28 mm. E x o p o d i t e: The proportion between the length 

 of this branch and that of the protopodite is about 10 : 11. The proportion between the length 

 of the first joint and the total length of the eight following joints is about the same as in the male. 

 The natatory bristles are also of the same relative length as in the other sex. E n d o p o d i t e: 

 This has two joints, the boundary between the original second and third joints not 

 being developed. Second joint: The g-bristle is of about the same type and relative length as 

 in the male. The f-, h-, i- and j -bristles are subequal and about a third shorter than the g-bristle, 

 bare or furnished with sparse short hairs and without any shafts; otherwise they are of about 

 the same type as in the male. There is a small papilla between the h- and i-bristles. Pilosity: 

 The second endopodite joint is bare. 



Sixth limb: — Endopodite: One of the two bristles sometimes has short 

 hairs. Exopodite: First joint: One or more of the ventral bristles often have short hairs. 

 The dorso-distal bristle is short; in some cases it seems to be quite absent. The dorsal one of 

 the three bristles on the end joint is often only half the length of the middle one. 



Rod-shaped organ: — This is of about the type described and reproduced by 

 G, W. MtJLLEi;. Its point reaches about as far as the point of the first antenna or only rather 

 slightly distally of this; cf. the accompanying fig. 7. 



Remarks: — The synonymy of this species is exceedingly complicated and it seems Synonyms. 

 impossible at present to unravel it with any certainty. In the present work I have 

 entirely followed the view adopted by G. W. Muller, 1906 a and merely refer to this 

 writer's exposition. 



Conchoecia curta, J. Lubbock, i860, p. 16 (188) is mentioned by the following authors: 

 G. W. Muller, 1906 a, p. 86, 1906 b, p. 5, 1908, p. 70, 1912, p. 77, G. H. FoWLER, 1909, 

 pp. 231, 259, 284, B. KAJDif, 1912, p. 939 and L. Schweiger, 1912, pp. 260, 262, 263, 271. 



C. rostrata (J. Lubbock, 1860, p. 17 [189]) is only mentioned by G. W. MuLLElt, 1906 a, 

 p. 86, 1906 b, p. 5 and 1912, p. 77. 



C. Clausi (G. 0. Sahs, 1887, p. 87 [259]) is mentioned by the following authors: 

 C. Claus, 1888, p. 153, 1890, p. 22, 1891 a, p. 73, 1894, p. 3, G. W . .MULLER, 1894, p. 230, 

 1906 a, p. 86, 1906 b, p. 5, 1908, p. 70, 1912, p. 77, G. S. BRADY and A. M. NORMAX, 1896, 

 p. 700, G. S. Brady, 1897, p. 97, 1902 a, p. 199 (-- 1903, pp. 337, 338), P. T. Clkve, 1900, 

 p. 39, 1904, p. 370, 1905, p. 131, S. Lo Blwco, 1903, pp. 148, 150, 199, 229, 230, 1904, p. 45, 

 A. M. NORMAN, 1905, p. 155, A. ScOTT, 1905, p. 370, V. VAvra, 1906, p. 61, Ch. Juday, 

 1906, p. 23, C. H. Ostenfeld and C. Wesenberg-Luxd, 1909, p. 113 and 0. de BUEN, 

 1916, p. 364. 



During my re-examination of the original material I verified that C. (~ Microconchoecia) 

 Clausii (P. T. Cleve, 1900) is a synonym of the form dealt with by me above. 



Zoolog. bidrag, Uppsala. Snppl.-Bd. I. 84 



