liJ^"' T.U'.I'; SKlKiSliKlU! 



wliat ilirtVrt'iit K'ligths. fioiii ;i sixth lo a tliird slioitcr tluin llic f-hiislli' and aliimsl as thick 

 as this (those thirc bristlos arc thus considerably nioic ih\ cliiiicd tlian in the male), haic and 

 without shafts. Hetween iho h- and i-hiisth>s tliere is, at h'ast in souio cases, an exceedingly 

 small papilla. IMlosity: The second endopodite joint is furnished with inoderatelv lout;, fine 

 hairs; see pi. XXIU, lig. 33. (I. W. Mi'lli:!;, KlOU a. 



Sixth limb: — One of the two bristles on the en(hi|Miditc has short hairs. 



■^i/nonyms. Renmih: — It seems to be quite certain that the species dealt with al)ove is identical 



with C.i>nrulota, V. Claus. 1874. It is true that the original description of C. Claus's s[)ecies 

 is not complete and also in some details obviously incorrect (e. g. in the number of bristles on 

 the male tirst anteima; see this writer, 1874 b, pi. I, fig. 7), but. in spite of this, it may be said 

 to be sufficient for a quite certain identification on account of the type of this species, wliicli is 

 in several respects characteristic. 



C. CL.\Ut> in his work of 1890, p. 21 identified Halocypris atlantica, G. S. Bhady, 1880 

 with this species. This identification is based chiefly on the shell; most of the other organs are 

 certainly described and reproduced by G. S. Brady, but the descriptions and figures are unfor- 

 tunately so uncertain and incorrect that no regard can be paid to them. In sjiite of this it may 

 be said that the correctness of this identification is beyond d(>ul)t. It has also been adopted 

 both by G. S. Bhahy himself and by ('. \\. Mi'I.LEH. (The latter added a query, however, 

 in his latest work, 1912.) An important reservation must, however, be made with regard to 

 this identification. The uncertainty of G. tS. Brady's determinations is such that it is best not 

 to accept the information as to the localities of this species that is given by this writer. The 

 following is a gooil illustration of this uncertainty. In his work of 1880 it is stated that this 

 species was caught by the ,,C h a 1 1 e n g e r" Expedition at twelve stations scattered over the 

 Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. According to the same writer's work of 1897, p. 97, this expedition 

 caught this species at (mly four stations; only two of these stations are the same as those 

 given in 1880. 



In his work of 1907 G. !S. BraIjY states that C. nerrulata was caught by the ,,D i s c o v- 

 e r y" at some stations in the Antarctic Ocean. With regard to these specimens it is stated 

 that they ,, differed in all cases from the type in being almost destitute of colour and striation 

 of the shell, and in the absence of marginal serrulalions". In all other respects, however, they 

 seemed to agree with the t}^e species. On account of these deviations G. S. Bhady distinguished 

 these specimens as the representatives of a special variety, which he called laevis. — These 

 differences caused G. W. MCl-LKii, 1908, to doubt the correctness of this identification, of G. S. 

 Brady's, ,,einigen Zweifel an der Richtigkeit der Identifizierung nicht unberechtigt erscheinen". 

 Both forms (C. serrvlata serrulata and C. serrvlata laevis) are, however, included in this writer's 

 synoptic work of 1912. It is certainly not impossible that the specimens defined by G. S. Brady as 

 C. serrulata laevis belong to quite a different species, but there seems to me to be no special 

 reasons to doubt the correctness of the identification. As has been pointed out above in the 

 supplementary description worked out by me, the shell-sculpture in this species is subject to 

 considerable variation. A good illustration of this is found in G. W. Muller's description of 



