Sliuiies on mariiiG Ostracotls (0/> 



according to G. W. MiiLLER's original description this joint has a somewhat smaller number 

 of these bristles (on p. 259 he says ,,gegen20" and, according to pi. XXVIII, fig. 1, there are only 

 fifteen), aU arranged in one row. (It is to be noted that in this author's figures of the first 

 antennae of both E. CMerchiae and E. aculeata, 1906 a, pi. XXXII, these sensory bristles are 

 also placed in one row.) 



Cf. also the remark under the genus on p. 739 above for the cavity on the second joint 

 of this antenna. 



Mandible: According to G. W. Muller's statement of 1894, p. 49, the genus 

 Euconchoecia is characterized by ,,eine fast voUstandige Riickbildung des Zahnes" on the pars 

 incisiva of the coxale. This statement clearly refers to E. Chierchiae. The figure of the pars 

 incisiva of this joint given by this writer (1890 a, pi. XXVIII, fig. 10) is unfortunately too 

 incomplete and uncertain to allow of a comparison of the development of the masticatory pad 

 in this species. To judge from (1. W. Muller's original description, the development and the 

 number of the bristles are different in E. Chierchiae and in the specimens investigated by me. 

 I need only mention here that in U. W. Muller's fig. 1, pi. XXVIII, the first endopodite joint 

 has only one bristle on the posterior side and the end joint is armed with five bristles, of which 

 the two longest are subequal and about as long as the total length of the two distal joints. 



Maxilla: According to pi. XXVIII, fig. 6, G. W. MULLER, 1890 a, the end joint 

 on this limb in E. Chierchiae either has five bristles, three of which are rather long and the two 

 others very short and fine, or else it has only three bristles, in which case the short, fine ,, bristles" 

 represent a couple of long, stiff hairs of the kind reproduced above for the form described by 

 me. According to fig. 1 of the same plate, however, this joint has five well-developed bristles 

 in E. Chierchiae. (No better illustration of the uncertainty in this writer's information could 

 be desired.) Other differences in the numbers of the bristles can be found in these figures of 

 E. Chierchiae given by G. W. Muller and the specimens examined by me. For these I merely 

 refer to a comparison between these figures and those given by me above. 



A number of differences can be found in the following limbs as well. 



It is natural that, under these circumstances, the identification was a matter of grave 

 doubt; I even thought it best to add a c|uery. 



On the other hand I decided — though only after rather serious doubt — not to include 

 E. Chierchiae, G. W. MtJLLER, 1906 a, in the above list of synonyms of the form described by 

 me. This was due especially to the fact that in the above-mentioned work G. W. MULLER 

 himself expressed a supposition that in this case he had been guilty of combining two very closely 

 related forms; he writes as follows, p. 128: „Ich habe geglaubt, die verschiedenen Forraen, 

 welche sich durch die Ausbildung der Spitze der rechten Schale unterscheiden, als verschiedene 

 Arten unterscheiden zu konnen, zumal mit der verschiedenen Gestaltung der Spitze Unter- 

 schiede in der GroBe Hand in Hand gehen (diejenigen mit abgestutzter Spitze sind kleiner), 

 dochhabe ich inErmangelungdurchgreifenderUnterschiede von der Aufstellung besonderer Arten 

 abgesehen." It is, of course, impossible for me to decide whether this suspicion is justified or not, 

 as I have not investigated this material, but it does not seem impossible that it is well grounded; 

 this idea is supported, among other things, by the great variation in the length of thesliell: 



Zoolog. bidrag, Uppaiila. SuppI.-B<I. I. 



