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.
I liave decided, though ouly after much hésitation, to follow the example of this writer
(1906 a) in identifying J. D. Dana’s two species Halocypris brevirostris and H. inflata, first with
each other, and secondly with the form described above. This writer does not give any
arguments in favour of this procedure of his, and yet it seems to need to be particularly well supported
by reasons; it is certain, however, that he does not base these identifications on a re-examination
of J. D. Dana’s original material. — J. D. Dana’s descriptions and figures of the forms in question
are unfortunately too incomplete and uncertain to permit of a quite certain identification of
the species. The only thing there really is for one’s guidance is the shape of the shells; the limbs
are too incompletely discussed in the original descriptions of these forms and are too uniform
in this genus to be used as material for proof in this question. Math regard to the shape of the
shells there is, however, a by no means complete agreement between the figures given by
J. D. Dana and those given by me above (or with those worked out by G. W. MÜLLER, 1906 a);
on the contrary, apart from the figures of the shells as seen from below, there are not
inconsid-erable differences to be observed. The greatest resemblance is to be found between J. D. Daxa’s
figure of the shell of II. brevirostris as seen from the side (1852, pl. XCI, fig. 9 b) and the figure
given by me above of the small male from Station 116 of the Swedish Antarctic
Expedition. The resemblance between these figures is, as a matter of fact, so great that
it forms a very strong argument in favour of identity. There is less resemblance between J. D.
Dana’s profile figure of H. inflata (1852, pl. XCI, fig. 8 b) and the specimens investigated by me.
This figure resembles most closely — by its great height — the type of shell in the females
investigated by me. It is possible that J. D. Dana’s species II. brevirostris corresponds to the
male and H. inflata to the female of the forms re-described by me above. This assumption is
supported by the length of the shells as well as their shape; J. D. Dana gives a lengtli of
I, 6 mm. (one sixteenth of an incli) for H. brevirostris and 1,7 mm. (one fifteenth of an incli)
for H. inflata. It is impossible, however, to be quite certain in this matter before the specimens
investigated by J. D. Dana have been re-examined.
On the other hand I was unable to accept G. W. Müller’s choice of the name for this form
(II. inflata). In J. D. Dana’s main work, 1852, H. inflata is certainly placed before II. brevirostris,
but in „Conspectus Crustaceoru m“, 1849, the preliminary treatise of this work,
II. brevirostris is, on the contrary, placed before H. inflata. According to Art. 26 c of the
international rules for nomenclature* II. brevirostris should thus be used as the name of this species.
There are no figures of II. brevirostris, J. Lubbock, 1860; the statement: „the anterior notcli is
single in one valve and double in the other“ is, however, a strong argument in favour of the
identification made above. It is fairly certain that the same author’s species II. Toynbeeana is identical with
the male of the species dealt with me above; the agreement in the shape of the shell is striking.
C. Claus, in his little essay on „Die Gattungen und Arten der Halocypriden**, 1874 a.
describes (p. 177) a new species of this genus, H. concha. (This is described in more detail in
* Zoolog. Anzeiger, Bd. XXVIII. j>. 579.
** C. Claus vvrites as follows in this work, p. 178, with regard to the two forms of J. D. I)ana’s just nientioned:
..Hierher gehören aiieh Iiana’s II. inflatu und brevirostris, die jedoch als Arten nicht zu trennen sind und ausschließlich
nach Weibchen beschrieben wurden“. Claus was conséquent ly the first to identify these two forms with euch other.
In later works of C. Claus’s these species are nol mentioned.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
