A HISTORY OF CUMBERLAND 
many of the lakes of Cumberland, Westmorland and Northumberland.’ * 
But in 1891 he recognized that this species was not distinct from the much 
older C. viridis (Jurine). The ‘ giant ’ examples reach a length of some- 
thing a little over a fifth of an inch, as distinguished from the normal 
length of about one-seventh of an inch. But there are various inter- 
mediate lengths, so that with only the character of size to rest upon it 
is impossible to say where the species viridis ends and the species or 
variety gigas begins.” . 
For Cyclops vicinus, Uljanin, 1875, Dr. Brady gives among other 
localities ‘ Sprinkling Tarn and Ennerdale Water, Cumberland.’* But 
Schmeil decides that this species is undoubtedly synonymous with C. 
strenuus, Fischer, 1851. As the latter is one of the species reported 
from Bassenthwaite by Miss Pratt, a deduction must be made from the 
total which included it under two different names. 
In regard to ‘Cyclops signatus, Koch,’ Miss Pratt says, ‘Examples with 
serrated and with simple ridge on antenne were taken. They are sup- 
posed to represent different stages in development (Herrick). This species 
is widely distributed and common in Britain.’* References are added to 
the accounts given in 1878 and 1891 by Dr. Brady, who in the latter 
year is disposed to agree with the opinion quoted from Herrick. But 
here Dr. Schmeil intervenes with a different decision to the effect that 
two distinct species are in question, for which the names are respectively 
C. fuscus (Jurine) and C. a/éidus (Jurine). For easy marks of recognition 
he points out that C. fuscus is usually gaily coloured, and that the packets 
of eggs lie so close to the abdomen as to cover a not inconsiderable part 
of it, whereas C. a/bidus is generally colourless, occasionally dark brown, 
often with dark patches on certain parts, and carries the egg-packets out- 
standing almost at right angles to the abdomen. The serrate ridge on the 
last joint of the first antenne belongs to C. fuscus, the simple ridge to 
C. albidus. By this ruling therefore, which shows that two species have 
been recorded under a single name, our original total is reinstated. 
‘Cyclops Thomasi, Forbes,’ according to Miss Pratt, ‘was rare in Bassen- 
thwaite in April, this being the first time that it has been recorded from 
the English lakes. No specimens were taken in June.’*® This is identi- 
fied by Schmeil with the earlier C. dicuspidatus, Claus. Dr. Brady sup- 
posed that Herrick might be right in considering ita mere variety of that 
species, but Schmeil will not allow it even that humble measure of 
distinctness. 
Specimens of Cyclops insignis, Claus, ‘were fairly common in the middle 
of the lake [Bassenthwaite] in April, but rare in June.’® In this species 
the first antennz are fourteen-jointed as opposed to the seventeen-jointed 
antenne of the species previously mentioned. For our purpose the 
name is exposed to some uncertainty. Dr. Brady originally described a 
species as C. /ubbocku which he afterwards identified with C. insignis, 
1 Ray Soc. Monograph, vol. i. p. 106 (1878). ®? Schmeil, Bid/. Zool. vol. iv. p. 101 (1892). 
3 Nat. Hist. Trans. Northumberland, etc., vol. xi. pt. i. p. 78. 
4 Ann. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, vol. ii. p. 473. 5 Loc. cit. p. 473. 8 Loc. cit. p. 473. 
166 
