16 



atory lobes, the former limbs in particular exhibiting a rather anomalous ap- 

 pearance, each of them having the form of a somewhat curved attenuated stem 

 provided at the base in front with a simple triangular lamella, and clothec 

 along the inner face with a dense, comb-like series of delicate recurving setae 

 the stem being terminated by a small decurved joint, apparently representing 

 the endopodite, and tipped with 2 small bristles. Anterior maxillipeds providec 

 at the base with the usual semilunar vibratory plate, their terminal part how- 

 ever far less complicated than in most other Cypridinids, forming a thin 

 somewhat tortuous lamella fringed on the one edge with delicate ciliated setae 

 Posterior maxillipeds almost wholly reduced to the triangular plate, by whicf 

 these limbs in other Cypridinids are terminated, the plate being considerably 

 more produced in front than behind and fringed with comparatively short setae 

 Last pair of limbs exhibiting the characteristic vermiform shape common tc 

 all the Cypridinidae. Caudal lamellae comparatively small, but armed with rathe: 

 strong curved claws rapidly increasing in size distally. Copulative appendages 

 of male almost wholly confluent. Posterior part of body in both sexes pro 

 vided dorsally with a double row of well developed imbricate gill-blads, 7 it 

 each row. 



Remarks. This is a very distinct genus, differing in some respects sc 

 conspicuously from the other Cypridinidae, that some recent authors (Brady 

 Skogsberg) have even removed it wholly as the type of a separate family 

 I think however that the present genus, in spite of these differences, ough 

 more properly to be retained within the family Cypridinidae, as the genera 

 type of that family is quite unmistakable both as regards the structure of the 

 shell and the composition of the enclosed body, and also in the manner ir 

 which the two sexes differ from each other. Yet the establishment of a sub 

 family, Asteroplnce, for its reception may be well justified. The most striking 

 feature distinguishing this genus is unquestionably the presence of true gills 

 of a structure similar to that found in the higher Crustacea. By this characte; 

 indeed the present genus differs not only from the other Cypridinidce, bu 

 from all hitherto known Ostracoda. The weak and apparently anomalous 

 structure of the maxillae and maxillipeds may be accounted for by the less rapacious 

 nature of the animal. The genus Cylindoleberis of Brady, as admitted by tha 

 author, is identical with Philippi's genus, which was established at a mucf^ 

 earlier date. Nor can I doubt that the genus Copechcete of Hesse ought tc 

 be adduced as a synonym, though Dr. Skogsberg, urging from some inaccurate 

 and evidently erroneous statements given by Hesse, find the identificatior 

 unadmissible. 



