packarp.] TRANSFORMATION OF ARTEMIA. 5O1 
by me here and in the Krimea an entirely different type of structure of 
the first antenne predominates, there being on the scarcely biramous 
end of the antenne of the first pair four olfactory bristles and three 
rather long bristles. Also at my visiting the Krimea last year (1876) 
I found the same Artemize as near Odessa. It is the same Artemia 
salina with its two forms (a smaller, the Artemia saiina, and a larger, 
the variety a. of A. salina), and moreover with its different variations, as 
they depend upon the difierent concentrations of the water in a known 
salt lake (the specimens with the characters of variety b. of A. salina 
and those with the characters of A. milhausenii). Beside the lake near 
Eupatoria I also visited five other small lakes near Sebastopolis. Out 
of one of these lakes, the second on the Chersonesis and at the same 
season of the year, Ulanin' obtained Artemiz and, as communicated to 
me by the author himself, alcoholic preparations already rather injured, 
which he described as a variety of A. arietina Fischer (Sr. arietinus 
Grb.). 8S. Fischer deseribed his A. arietina also from alcoholic speci- 
mens, but we ought from all Crustaceans, Artemide 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 Artemiz and Branehi- 
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, Ariemia salina, the secoud 
antenne of the male, while in another species, Artemia milhausenti, under 
the same name, the second anteune of the temale have been described 
(cornes céphaliques, Milne Edw. Hist. nat. des crustacées), as the males 
of this species were not yet known,” about which I shall speak further 
below. For those uninitiated in Artemia and the singularities 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 Milne Edie. receiving the characters of 
Artemia Milhausenti Milne Edw. 
Artemia milhausentt has been described by authors under various 
names (Branchipus milhausentt Fischer von Waldheim, Art. salina 
Rathke, Art. milhausenit 8S. 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 in nature and those obtained by a certain domesti- 
cation from A. salina and its first variety (varietas a.) agree with those 
which have been described by the authors under the name of A. mil- 
hausenti and synonyms, or, better expressed, if there is in a state of 
nature no other A. milhausenit than the degraded and medified 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- 
hausenti, then A. milhausenii, owing to the manner of its origin and the 
. “Schriften der kaiserlichen Ges. der Liebhaber der Nat. Anthrop. und Voélker- 
beschr. Moskau. Vol. V, part i, page 96. 
2 C. von Siebold, Beitriige zur Parthenogenesis der Arthropoden, 1571, p. 209. 
* Consult my paper: Explications relatives aux différences qui existent entre l’Ar- 
temia salina et Art. milhausenii et entre les genres Artemia et Branchipus. Bi- 
blioth. Universelle et Revue Suisse. ‘‘ Archive des sciences phys. et natur. Gendve.” 
Vol. 57, No. 224, 1876, pp .358 to 365. 
