10 M.J. ORLOVA-BIENKOWSKAJA 







SSS Set FF 
—= = 
= SET 



KE SN LEE ye 
KK 
o, 
an 
Ces 






Yi, 
KKK 
Ke 

SS 
SMMMAAQ0y5s 
xe 

Fig. 9 S. vetulus, female 2nd trunk limb. A, general view, B, endopod. 
differs from S$. vetulus (Monoculus sima) in rostrum shape. How- S. vetulus var. angustifrons Lilljeborg differs from the typical 
ever, judging from the illustrations in the original description, these form in the presence of a prominence on the ventral head margin. 
species are identical. Information about the types of S. nasutus is Some authors (Behning, 1941; Manujlova, 1964) consider this 
lacking. I agree with Lilljeborg (1900), that S. nasutus is a junior variety to be a subspecies, but I believe it to be a synonym, because 
synonym of S. vetulus. I have found specimens both with and without the prominence in the 
S. vetulus var. brandti Cosmovici was described from Romania. type material of S. vetulus var. angustifrons (Fig. 22). Moreover the 
There is no information about the type material. Cosmovici (1900) animals with such a prominence sometimes occur in the most of 
writes that he named this variety thus because it is intermediate Simocephalus species. 
between S. vetulus and S. brandtii Fischer (= S. serrulatus). Refer- S. vetulus gebhardti and S. mixtus hungaricus were described 
ring to the illustrations by Cosmovici, it is the junior synonym of S. from Hungary. The author (Ponyi, 1955, 1956) writes that these 
vetulus. subspecies differ from S. vetulus vetulus in head shape and denticles 
