G74 TUIK SKOGSUKHG 



Tlu' first a nt n n a is of the sanio tv])o as in ('. Ihiddnm. Iml all tiic joints scoin 

 always to bo baiv. 



Ill other respects it resembles C. Iladdoni. 



Synonyms. /?('»«jrA>'; — It seeiiis to nic l)c\iiinl ilniilit that tlic I'liriii (l(';ilt witli li\ inc ^iliovc is identical 



with C. bi^pitwsa V. ClaIS. It is true that a number of small dilleroncos may hv noted l)etwe.en 

 the oriijinal description of this species and the specimens investigated by me, but these are 

 presumably due to lack of accuracy on the part of C. Clai S. It may be pointed out especially 

 that in the females investigated by me the second joint of the first antenna was furnished with 

 a dorsal bristle, while there is no such bristle in the figure of this organ given by C. Claus, 1S1»1 a. 

 To judge from ('. Cl.Al s, pi. V, fig. 4 and pi. Vlll. tig. 7 in the work mentioned the penis of this 

 species would be subject to a considerable variation. In the male investigated by me this organ 

 agreed, as has been pointed out above, with the first of these two figures. It is to be noted that 

 C. Claus does not mention in the text that this organ is subject to variation. Did the penis 

 reproduced in pi. VIII, fig. 7 belong to a specimen of another species than the one dealt with here? 



As is seen above, C. ClaUS states that there was a moderately great variation in ttie length 

 of the shell in this species (1,5 — 1,8 mm.). The specimens investigated by me also showed a 

 relatively moderate variation with regard to this character; as is seen above, they resembled 

 rather closely the specimens investigated by C. Claus (1,6 — 1,95 mm.). Contrary to this, 

 G. W. MCller points out (19U6 a) that the length of the shell in this species is subject to very 

 strong variation: ,,Gr6Be auBerordentlich schwankend: $, 1,74—3,0, c?, 1,66—2,4 mm." This 

 variation was, however, not continuous. We read as follows about it (1906 a, p. 91): ,,An 

 manchen Fundorten sondern sich die Individuen deutlich in grofiere und kleinero, z. B. in 

 Station 26 ? 1,74, 1,8, 2,5, 2,6 mm; 3cJ 1,66 mm, 2<S 2,3 mm und derartige Funde legen den 

 Gedanken nahe, daB wir es mit 2 VarietJiten zii thun haben, doch finden sich zwischen den vcr- 

 schiedenen GroBen alle Ubergange, auch einen Zusammenhang zwischen GroBe und geographi- 

 scher Verbreitung vermag ich nicht zu erkennen, ebensowenig wie zwischen GroBe und der ver- 

 schiedenen Beschafienheit der Oberflache, des Frontalorgans und der Greiforgane des (^." 



Are we concerned here with a species whose shell shows a very great amplitude of variation 

 with regard to length or has G. W. Muller confused two very closely related varieties? 



Apart from G. W. Muller, V. VAvRA is the only writer who has touched on this problem. 

 In his work of 1906 this author distinguishes the larger specimens (J = 2,5 mm., $ = 2,8 mm.; 

 no variation is stated in this work) as a new species, C. secernenda*. ^^'ith regard to the relation 

 of this species to C. bispinosa V. VAvRA writes (p. 60): ,,Conchoecia secernenda n. sp. steht 

 C. bispinosa Cls. nahe, doch ist die Schalenform verschieden und uni die Halfte groBer als diese. 

 Die mannliche Hauptborste tragt bei C. secernenda 45 Zahne, bei C. bispinosa 30 Zahne". The 

 difference in the shape of the shell between C. bispinosa and C. secernenda is rather slight. To 

 judge from V. VA^■RA's fig. 121 the dii!erence really seems to consist merely in the fact .that the 

 posterior part of the shell is somewhat higher in V. VAvra's new species; the posterior margin 

 of the shell is also somewhat less straight in the latter form (in this the latter agrees with the 



• There were no small specimens, i. e. C. hispiiwsd. in tin- inatciial iiivesligatoil Ijv \. \ Wha. 



