POSTSCRIPT 
Since this paper has been set up in page form, there has appeared a 
‘Contribution 4 l’étude des Décapodes Macroures marins et fluviatiles 
du bassin du Congo Belge,’ by Dr. J. G. de Man (Ann. Mus. Congo 
Belge, Zool., Sér. III, Arthropodes, Sec. ITI, Crustacés, I, fase. 1, 1925). 
De Man adds three new varieties to the long list of such forms 
already attributed to Caridina togoensis in a very detailed analysis of his 
material. He has not convinced me that my stand, that the many varia- 
tions recorded for this species are not worthy or distinct enough to re- 
ceive varietal names, is a mistaken one. I have seen specimens with 
rather large rostral teeth much as in his variety kwamouthensis of this 
species. Indeed the specimens with fewer dorsal teeth usually have them 
individually larger. Had I examined all of my 800 or more specimens 
with this point in mind, I feel sure lower counts for the ventral rostral 
teeth might have been recorded such as one or two only, or maybe none. 
Three is the least number I observed, on the other hand at least two of 
the only nine (or let me say, of the six measured) specimens of kwa- 
mouthensis had four teeth below, while one had three ventral rostral 
teeth. 
The lengthening out of the interval between the distal dorsal teeth 
of the rostrum in de Man’s variety schoutedenz is also characteristic of the 
cotype of the typical species figured by de Man. Even though the 
ventral teeth do not run, in this particular specimen, as near the tip as in 
schoutedeni, de Man nevertheless did have several variants of variety 
stuhlmanni much resembling schoutedeni (cf. his figures 2c, 2¢ 1, 2r 5). 
Besides, every lot of schoutedeni de Man had at hand represented but 
from about 50 per cent to approximately only 25 per cent of collections, 
the balance of which was, as he says, the variety decorsei (= stuhlmannt). 
Among these, furthermore, were occasional specimens with characters 
approaching schoutedenz. 
Moreover this same cotype (op. cit., fig. 2a from Bismarkburg) has 
large teeth somewhat resembling those of kwamouthensis and rather 
longer hairs like those of this species also. 
The variation in the size of the eggs of Caridina togoensis and its 
varieties taken from de Man’s tabular summaries is great enough to blot 
out any real distinctions that one might endeavor to base on such a 
character. In the variety kasaiensis larger egg-size is a stressed character, 
but in spite of the less slender, ambulatory legs, as described, I do not 
believe it can be maintained as a distinct variety. 
64 
