1888.] AUSTBALIAN CLADOCEEA. 67 



the Koyal Society of Van Diemens Land", Vol. II, Part II. It 

 may be observed that some of these species, viz., those belon- 

 ging to the family Daphnidae (proper) have been already men- 

 tioned, and some of the figures copied, by Mr. Schoedeler in his 

 paper „Zur Naturgeschichte der Daphninen. Beitrage zur Kennt- 

 niss der systematischen Angehorigkeit der Daphninen." Berlin 

 1877. I do not however fully agree with that author as to his 

 identification of some of the species. 



The species enumerated by King are in all 18, viz.: — 



1. Daphnia carinata, King. 



This form is, I think, evidently different from any of the 

 European species, though perhaps, as also suggested by Schoe- 

 deler, more nearly related to Daphnia magna Straus (= D. 

 Schaefferi Baird). 



Besides the typical form Mr. King figures 4 varieties, two 

 of which are separately named as var. gravis and var. cephalafa. 

 I think Mr. Schoedeler is right in regarding the two latter 

 varieties at least as more properly distinct species. In none of 

 these supposed varieties is there however any approach to the 

 very remarkable form of the head in D. Liimholtzii, described by 

 the author in a previous paper. 



2. Daphnia Elizabethan, King. 



Gen. Simocephalus. See above. 



The supposition advanced by Mr. Schoedeler, that this form 

 is identical with the European species S. vetulus (Miiller), I have 

 shown to be evidently wrong. On the other hand, there can be 

 little doubt, that he is quite right in holding the form, described 

 by King as var. acuti-rostrata, to be a distinct species, though I 

 believe this species should more properly be named S. acuti- 

 rostratus and not, as proposed by Mr. Schoedeler, S. paradoxus. 



6» 



