PACKAKD.] TEANSFOEMATION OF ARTEMIA. 501 



by me here and iu the Krimea an entirely different type of structure of 

 the first antennae predominates, there being on the scarcely biramous 

 end of the antennas of the first pair four olfactory bristles and three 

 rather long bristles. Also at my visiting the Krimea last year (1S76) 

 I found the same Artemiae as near Odessa. It is tlie same Artemia 

 saliria with its two forms (a smaller, the Artemia saHna, and a larger, 

 the variety a. of A. salina), and moreover with its diiierent variations, as 

 they depend uj)on the differeat concentrations of the water in a iinovv-n 

 salt lake (the specimens with the characters of variety h. of A. salina 

 and those with the characters of ^. milhaiisenii). Beside the lake near 

 Eu])atoria 1 also visited live other small lakes near Sebastopolis. Out 

 of one of these lakes, the second on the Chersonesis and at the same 

 season of the year, JJlanin^ obtained Artemiae and, as communicated to 

 me by the author himself, alcoholic preparations already rather injured, 

 which he described as a variety of A. arietina Fischer {Br. arietinus 

 Grb.). S. Fischer described his A. arietina also from alcoholic speci- 

 mens, but we ought from all Crustaceans, Artemidae the least, not to 

 describe them after alcoholic specimens, as in them especially the num- 

 ber and the relation of the postabdominal segments remain concealed 

 from any observer who does not succeed in obtaining live material. 

 Unhappily also the systematic description of the Artemiae and Branchi- 

 pus has hitherto remained still the same, as founded in literature by 

 descriptions from alcoholic specimens. Such misrepresentations arise 

 from this, that, for instance, in one species, Artemia salina, the second 

 antennae of the male, while in another species, Artemia milhausenii, under 

 the same name, the second antennae of the female have been described 

 (cornes cephaliques, Milne Edw. Hist. nat. des crustacees), as the males 

 of this species were not yet known,^ about which I shall speak further 

 below. For those uninitiated in Artemia and the singidarities of its 

 literature, such diagnosis may form a source of many errors, which I 

 have elsewhere endeavored to clear up.^ 



2. — Generations of Artemia salina Mihip. Edw. receiving the characters of 

 Artemia Milhausenii Milne Ediv. 



Artemia milhausenii has been described by authors under various 

 names [Branchipus milhausenii Fischer von Waldheim, Art. salina 

 Kathke, Art. milhausenii S. Fischer) from alcoholic specimens, and 

 therefore we find various contradictions and inaccurate accounts in the 

 descriptions of this species. Other authors (Milne Edw., Grube) bor- 

 rowed accounts from the former for the diagnosis of this species. If 

 the forms occurring iu nature and those obtained by a certain domesti- 

 cation from A. salina and its first variety (vari^tas a.) agree with those 

 which have been described by the authors under the name of A. mil- 

 hausenii and synonyms, or, better expressed, if there is in a state of 

 nature no other A. milhausenii than the degraded and modified form of 

 A. salina, which receives with the generations after a certain time and 

 by heightening the salt capacity of the salt lake the characters of A. mil- 

 hausenii, then A. milhausenii, owing to the manner of its origin and the 



^ "Scbrifteu der kaiserlicben Ges. cTer Liebhaber der Nat. Antbrop. imd Viilker- 

 bescbr. Moskan. Vol. V, part i, page 9t). 



2 C. von Siebold, Beitriige zr.r Partbenogenesis der Artbropoden, 1871, p. 209. 



3 Consult my paper: Explications relatives anx diflereuces qui existent eutre I'Ar- 

 temia salina et I'Art. milbausenii et entre les genres Artemia et Brancbipus. Bi- 

 bliotb. Universelle et Revne Suisse. "Arcbive des sciences phys. et uatur. Geneve." 

 Vol. 57, No. 224, 1876, pp .358 to 365. 



