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.
■Vamber of species.
Sub-family II. Phüomedinae ,,
,, III. Sarsiellinae ,,
,, IV. Asteropinae „
01 these genera O. V . MÜLLER writes:
Philomedes
Pseudophüomedes
Sarsiella
three genera
one genus
two genera
Philomedes
Pseudo plt Hornede s
I Rutülerma
Sarsiella
I Asterope
\ Cydasterope.
as a synonym of Telragonodon
,, ,, ,, ,, Paramekodon
i Streptoleberis
,, „ „ ,, ! Eurypylus
I Nematohamma
In his synoptic work in „D a s Tierreich“, 1912, this author records 155 recent
species of this sub-order, 105 of which would be „certain“, 50 „uncertain“. The proportion
between „certain“ and „uncertain“ is, however, mucli more in favour of the latter category,
a faet that I have unfortunately been only too often reminded of during my study of this group.
After this work of G. AV. Müller some additional species, though only a few, have been
incorporated in the literature of this group.
Xatural system. Remarks: — The difference between the two above-mentioned divisions of this sub-order
worked out by G. S. Brady—A. M. Norman and G. \Y. Müller is, as is seen at the first glance,
not profound. Two divergencies are to be noted. First G. AV. Müller has removed the genera
Philomedes and Pseudophilomedes from G. S. Brady’s and A. M. Norman’s family Cypridinidae
and of these has formed a new systematic unit, the sub-family Phüomedinae, ranged with the
sub-family Cypridininae, which includes all the remaining genera of the above-named family,
and with the sub-families Sarsiellinae and Asteropinae. Secondly the same author has adopted
the genus Rutiderma in the new sub-family Phüomedinae, which genus had formerly been
distinguished by G. S. BRADY and A. M. Norman as a representative of a special family
Rutider matidae, ranged with the C y p r i d i n i d s, S a r s i e 11 i d s and Asteropids.
AA’hich of these divisions is préférable? Is any of them quite natural or is none at
all suitable to be accepted without alteration?
A thorough study of the forms belonging liere has led me to the following conclusions:
The separation attempted by G. AV. MÜLLER of the genera Phüomedes and
Pseudophilo-medes from the genera Cypridina, Pyrocypris, Crossophorus, Codonocera and Gigantooypris
is undoubtedly at least partly justified. The two first-mentioned genera are, as is clearly shown
by the descriptions given by G. AA’. MÜLLER and by those 1 have worked out below, decidedly
opposed to the genera enumerated after them in so many respects that they must necessarily
be separated systematically from the latter.
This, however, does not prevent the division given by G. S. Brady and A. M. NORMAN
Ironi having its ad vantages. The sub-families Cypridininae and Phüomedinae are, it is true,
well differentiated from each otlier, but on the other hånd they are considérable more closely
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
