7(M'. TACIO SKOtlSHKliC! 



( '. ponrcta. (In tin- small spt'cimcns dt'scrilu'd iiy nic nlnixr tins luistlc was al\va\s sonicwliat 

 lnn>;or; it rearlnnl in most oases to about tlu' luidtlli' ol the liisl joint ol this linili. 'I'lic state- 

 ments alioMt this fiiaractcr \aiy in the litciatiiir, Init t he ci'itainl \(il I hcsc stalcnimts is donlit I'ul. 

 so that 1 do not think it convfiiicnt to deal with it at anv haiL'tli in tiiis connect imi.) 



Do ( '. spinirostria ami ( '. pnnctid represent two well di ITcreiit iatcd lornis; is the identi- 

 fication carried ont by (J. W. Ml"l,l.i;i{ nnjustitied"!' 



It seems to me not improbable that these questions in\ist be answeied in thi' atlirniative; 

 if this is the case, then it is clear that niv specimens from S. A. K.. I'l. station 4 1) and the 

 larger specinn^ns of (J. W. MCl.KRH's species C. spinirostris, 1906 a, belong to C porrecta. 

 A definite answer to this problem is, however, not possible at present. A renewed investigation 

 carried out on abnntlant material wouUl be necessary before it could be given. 



On account of this state of uncertainty it did not seem to me ]>roper to include, the name 

 of ('. spinirostris. (i. \V. MriJ.i;i{, liKlO a, nor the same luune in this investigator's works of 

 1906 b, 1908 and litl-2 m my list of synonyms. 



The only one of the other writers who has accepted the .synonymization (L spinirostris 

 — C. porrecta is Th. Scott, 1912 a. 



Ct. S. BitVHY, 1902 a, p. 199 (=^ 1903, pp. 338 and 339) and V. VAm^a, 1906, state that 

 they have found ('. porrecta, but unfortunately these writers give neither description nor figures. 

 V. VA\ji.\, who states that he found this species — only female specimens — at no less than 

 fifteen of the stations of the ,, Plankton Expedition", only writes ,,diese leicht erkenntliche Art", 

 an expression that is presumably taken direct from C. Claus's original description. 



(4. H. FOWLRR, 1909, takes C. porrecta as ,, Stage I" of C. spinirostris. Only two specimens, 

 two males, of the first-mentioned form were found in the material in question. Both these 

 specimens had shells 1,3 mm. h)ng. The e-bristle on the first antenna was characterized by 

 .,16 pairs of saw-like teeth, followed by about 11 pairs of spine-teeth; the latter so 

 markedly alternate as to suggest a single row unless viewed directly from above"; there were 

 consequently 16 pairs of ,, saw-like teeth" and a row of 22 ,, spine-teeth", i. e. about the 

 same number as was found by C. Claus, G. W. MUllei^ and me. For other characters see the 

 work in question, p. 252. Cf. also in this matter p. 565 above. 



The only writer who has followed this procedure of G. H. Fovnleh's is L. Schweigrr, 

 1912. This writers says (p. 266) that he followed G. H. Fowler and not G. W. MOller „weil 

 mir vereinzelte Stadium II untergekommen sind, die aber docli im Yerhiiltnis gestreckte Formen 

 waien, und umgekehrt Formen von I, die aber weniger gestreckt als die vorher erwahnten waren." 

 No length is given for the ,,porrecta stage"; the males of the ,, spinirostris stage" would have 

 attained a length of 1,02 — 1,3 mm. and the females 1,12 — 1,5 mm. The work, which is character- 

 ized by a certain amount of uncertainty, has no other information that is of any interest in 

 connection with this problem. 



C. spinirostris, V. VAvra, 1906, has not been included in the above list of synonyms 

 because this writer states that the females of this species investigated by him had a dorsal bristle 

 on the second joint of the first antenna: ,,mit sehr feiner, gewohnlich dem Frontalorgan eng 

 anliegender Dorsalborste, so daB dieselbe von einigen Autoren iibersehen wurde"; in plate I, 



