Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Sidor ...
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
According to Gt. W. MÜLLER’s view, the following is the correct classification:
Tribus I. Myodocopa, comprising the families Cypridinidae, Halocypridae, and Polycopidae
,, II. Podocopa, ,, ,, .. Cypridae, Darwinulidae, Nesideidae, Cytheridae,
and Cytherellidae.
C. CLAUS, on the other hand, divides the Ostracod group directly into families.
According to this author the Halo c y p r i d s form a transitional group between the C y p r
i-d i n i d s and the families grouped under Podocopa.
Which of these methods of classification is préférable? Is an y of them to be
regarded as completely right?
I have tried to answer these questions in the second chapter of the general part of this
work, entitled: „Contributions to our knowledge of the natural system of the Ostracod s.“
As is seen in p. 101 the resuit of my study has been to show that it does not seem quite
convenient to adopt any of these three methods of classification quite unaltered. It appeared
to me to be necessary to divide C. O. Sars’ sectio Myodocopa into two main groups équivalent
to Podocopa, Cladocopa and Platycopa, but apart from this Saks’s view has been accepted.
The main classification of the Ostracod group that is employed in this work is as follows:
Sub-order I. Cypridiniformes, comprisinj
II. Halocypriformes, „
., ,, III. Polycopiformes,
,. ,, IV. Cypriformes,
,. ,, V. Cytherelliformes,
all C y p r i d i n i d s
., Halocyprids
,, P o 1 y c o p i d s
C y prid s, Darwinulids, Nesidei d s,
and C y t h e r i d s
,, C y therellids.
In what order ought these groups to be placed? In other words, is it possible to
decide which groups are most primitive?
As is shown in the above-mentioned chapter in the general part of this work, the
facts of the matter are presumably that each group is in a number of respects more
primitive than the others, in other respects more developed. It is difficult to decide with certainty
which of these groups has the greatest number of primitive characteristics. Under these
circumstances it seems to me most convenient to adopt the arrangement used by (1. W. Müller.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
