KUNGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIENS HANDLINGAR. BAND 52. N:O0 |5. 19 
sidered it convenient to follow his procedure, but have decided to give the above 
form a new name. 
G. W. MöLLER, 1912, also rejects this identification. He gives, however, to the 
species described by G. O. SaArRs the name Cyprinotus dentato-marginalus O. SARS 
— adding »(non 1859 Cypris marginato-dentata W. BaAirp)» — a mistake evidently due 
to the fact that this author has not noticed that the name Cypris marginato-dentala 
is a misprint on the part of W. Bairp and that the real name of this author's species 
is that used by G. O. SARS. 
Another consequence of this oversight was that G. W. MULLER in his account of 
this subgenus dealt with a species Cyprinotus marginato-dentatlus, a species that does 
not exist, but not with Cyprinotus dentato-marginatus (W. BairpD). He pointed it 
out as indeterminable and with it, curiously enough and certainly quite incorrectly, 
he identified Cypris marginato-dentata var. W. BaAIrD. 
Whether the species recorded from Algiers by G. S. BRADY, 1902, under the 
name Cyprinotus dentato-marginatus (BAIRD) can: be considered identical with G. 
O. SARS's Australian form cannot be settled either from the statements in the text 
or from the two superficial drawings. The author gives the species as »apparently 
referable> to this form. >»It differs somewhat from Dr. BairpD's figure, being rather 
more elongated, but has proportions similar to those figured by Prof. G. O. SARS. 
G. W. MÖLLER, 1912, gives it as a synonym of G. O. SARS's species, adding, how- 
ever, a query. Ås is to be seen from the above I have omitted it from the list of 
synonyms, an identification for several reasons being of no scientific value. 
My above description may be considered a complement of G. O. SARS's account 
the only detailed description of a species belonging to this subgenus hitherto print- 
ed. Many of the characteristies mentioned are certainly of generic or even of 
greater value from a systematical point of view. I have, however, considered it neces- 
sary to give positive statements about as many characters as possible, as I have found 
our knowledge of the generic characteristics of these small creatures anything but 
complete, several of the characteristics categorically stated by C. Craus, A. KAur- 
MANN and S. JENSEN as similar in all Cyprids being different in the above species 
and some statements of these authors being also incompatible with one another. 
For the muscular system of the extremities reference may be made to the draw- 
ings. Concerning the muscles of the first antenna two facts may, however, be pointed 
out. Arising proximally from the ventral part of the posterior chitinous stripe of 
the first joint a rather strong muscle (a, fig. 17.) ascends on the lateral side of this 
joint and inserts distally into the upper part of the proximal chitinous stripe of the 
original second joint, a fact that seems to indicate that the original first and second 
joints, treated as a single joint in the description after the example of previous 
authors, are not rigidly joined but still moveable. The second (originally third) joint 
is moved by a well-developed extensor and a rather weak flexor proximally arising 
from the proximal chitinous stripe of the first joint. "These two muscles, which are 
rather interesting from the point of view of comparative morphology, — a problem 
