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.
So far seven* genera of this group have been established, namelv:
Cypridina, H. Milne Edwards, is4o.
Monopia**, C. CLAUS, 187.3.
Crossophorus, G. S. Brady, 1880.
Pyrocypris, G. W. Müller, 1890 ( Eupathistoma, G. S. BRADY, 1898. p. 437).
Gigantocypris, (i. \V. Müller, 1890.
Codonocera, (4. S. BRADY, 1902 a.
Cypridinodes, G. S. Brady, 1902 a.
Of these it seems as if the genera Crossophorus. Gigantocypris and Codonocera may
without hésitation be characterized as natural classificatory units, well defined from
each other and from other genera, as has already been pointed out by G. \\’. Müller,
1906 b, pp. 12 and 13.
The genus Pyrocypris ( —Cypridina, s. str., et s. meo) comprises a rather large number
of very closely related species. These species are presumably more closely related to the forms
that have been grouped by G. W. MÜLLER under the naine of Cypridina than are the three
above-mentioned genera Crossophorus, Gigantocypris and Codonocera. This does not, however,
prevent their breaking-out as a higher systematic unit from being considered as quite
justified. G. W. Müller himself seems, however, to have had doubts as to the correctness
of establishing this genus; he writes on this point, 1906 b, p. 13, as follows: „Die Gattung
Pyrocypris .... steht der Gattung Cypridina s. str. viel näher als die genannten“
(Crossophorus, Gigantocypris and Codonocera), „man kann in Zweifel darüber sein, ob nicht manche
Vertreter von Cypridina ihr näher verwandt sind als anderen Vertretern der Gattung, und ob
ihre Abtrennung die natürliche Verwandtschaft zum Ausdruck bringt.“ Then he adds: ..Auf
jeden Fall vereinigt sie eine größere Zahl nahe verwandter Form, läßt sich auch scharf
characterisieren.“ — In his last large synoptic work on the Ostracods, 1912, this
investigator certainly quite correctly retains this unit, in spite of this doubt of his. In the
present work I have followed him in this procedure with the exception that the group in
question has been considered a sub-genus of the genus Cypridina***.
Of the three remaining genera, Cypridina, Monopia and Cypridinodes, G. V. Müller
always rejects the two latter; all three are united by this author under the generic name
Cypridina. He gives the following reasons for this method of procedure of his (1906 b. p. 13):
„Anders ist es bei den folgenden Gattungen: Monopia Ci.Al s charakterisirt durch das
umfangreiche Frontalorgan. Berücksichtigen wir nur das Frontalorgan, so reißen wir nächst verwandte
Formen, wie z. B. C. flaveola Claus und favus Brad\ Cypridinodes facus Brady auseinander.
Brady hat 1. c. die Gattung Cypridinodes aufgestellt, doch beruht seine Charakteristik ganz
oder fast ganz auf Beobachtungsfehlern: an der Maxille sind die auch bei anderen Vertretern
der Gattung Cypridina kurzen Kaufortsätze der Maxille abgerissen, der schlanke Maxillartaster
* With regard to the genus Heterodesmus, G. s. Brady, 1868 b, cf. below under the sub-genus Siphonastra.
** In a later work, 1891 b, note p. 10 C. Clacs allered Iliis name to Eumonopia „da Lcbbock bereits früher
eine Pontelliden-Gattung Monops genannt hatte“. There seems t" me t>> be ii" reason for following this change
of name.
*** With regard to the name of this sub-genus see below p. 192.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
