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.
spécimens investigated by me). The differences in the length of the shell and the armature
of the e-bristle on the male first antenna are, however, more important.
In his later Works G. \\. MÜLLER retains the view that lie adopted in his work of 1906 a.
In his synoptic work (1912) he thus writes C. secernenda as a synonym of G. bispinosa.
It is of course exceedingly difficult for me to have any decided views on this question,
as I have only been able to investigate a rather small material of these forms. I have
prelimi-narily sided with V. VÂVRA. The facts that led me to this decision were, first, the discontinuitv
of the variation in the length of the shell observed by G. W. MÜLLER at several localities and,
secondly, the fact that in the male investigated by me the e-bristle on the first antenna was
armed with about the same number of spines as C. CLAUS found in the specimens investigated
by him.
Besides the places included in the list of synonyms worked out above C. bispinosa C.
Claus is mentioned in the following places: G. S. BRADY, 1897, p. 95, P. T. Cleye, 1905, p. 129
and G. W. MÜLLER, 1906 b and 1908. The reasons why I did not include these Statements in
the list just mentioned are, first, the uncertainty I have just pointed out and, secondly, the fact
that there is no verificatory information about them.
C. bispinosa, P. T. CLEVE, 1900 is also without any verificatory information. I have
nevertheless included it as a synonym because I have myself investigated the original material
of this form; cf. below.
G. W. Müller (1912) also includes C. Müllen, Ch. Jlday. 1906 as a synonym of C.
bispinosa. This identification is probably incorrect. Unfortunately, however, the original
description of this species is too incomplete and uncertain to permit of any certain decision
(length of shell, — 2,6 mm., $ = 2,8 mm.).
C. bispinosa is extremely closely related to C. Haddoni. The only characters that
distinguish these two species are really, as is shown above, the occurrence of spines on the
posterior dorsal corner of the shell in C. bispinosa and the armature of the e-bristle on the male
first antenna. In the latter character the (large) specimens of C. Haddoni investigated by me
resembled C. secernenda. Cf., in addition, the female antenna in the two forms. It w o u 1 d
perhaps be most convenient to include C. Haddoni as a variety of
C. bispinosa. That they are identical, i. e. that the differences mentioned are due to individual
variation, seems to me rather improbable, especially because their areas of distribution do not
quite coincide. Thus G. H. Fowler found C. Haddoni in the Bay of Biscay, but not, on the
other hånd, C. bispinosa, in spite of the not inconsiderable material. V. VAvra found C. Haddoni
at four stations ,,in vielen Exemplaren“, C. secernenda at not less than twenty stations. In
addition the two forms were never found together. Cf. also G. W. MÜLLER, 1906 a. It remains,
however, a task for future investigators to examine this question in more detail.
Habitat: — Atlantic Ocean:
S. A. E., PI. station 30, lat. 29° 52’ N., long. 20° 14’ W.; at the surface; 7. XI. 1901;
temperature, 21°,1 C. : 1 male juvenis; R. 31. S. 259. S. A. E., PI. station 4 b, lat. 25° 51’ N.,
long. 21° 29’ W. ; at the surface; 9. XI. 1901; temperature, 22,5° C. : 2 mature females; R. M.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
