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.
It seems tu mo rather probable that C. borealis, G. S. Br AD Y and A. M. Norman, 1896
is a ,svnonym of this form; the specimens described and reproduced. by tbese writers were
presumably caught off the west coast of Norway. The description and figures are, however,
exceedingly incomplete and uncertain; it would be super fiuous to enter upon a detailed critici,sm
of t hem; 1 shall only point out here as an illustration that on the endopodite of the female second
antenna the end joint is furnished with six long bristles, a number that is not fourni in a
single species of this genus; two g-bristles are drawn instead of one.
I have myself verifiecl the correctness of the determination of C. borealis, C. \V. S.
AlRl-\ ILEUS, 1899, pp. 62 and 66; ci. p. 717 below.
C. borealis, H. H. GRAN, 1902 is included in the above list of synonyms because the
specimens on which this statement is based were defined by G. ( ). Sars, who distinguished between
C. borealis and C. maxima on that occasion.
C. borealis, P.T.Cleye, 1903 (— C. b., P. T. Cleye and O. PETTERSSON, 1903) was only
included in this list after 1 had myself subjeeted the original material to a careful verificatory
examination.
It seems to me rather probable that C. borealis, V. Yäyra, 1906 is also identical with this
species. Only two specimens were caught by the Plankton Expedition, a mature
male and a mature female, both at the same station, in the Labrador current. A number of
differences can certainly be noted, e. g. the shape of the female shell, the glands along the posterior
margin of the shell (cf. pl. III, fig. 57) and the armature of the d-bristle on the male first antenna.
We should also note this author’s statement with regard to the sculpture of the shell: ,,Die
Struktur der Schale ist ziemlich fein, aber deutlich, in rhombischen Feldern bestehend.“ This
statement seems to support the idea that in these two specimens the sculpture was more weakly
developed than in the specimens from the west coast of Scandinavia. Wh at seems in my opinion
specially to support the idea of identity with the form dealt with above is the information as to
the length of the shell; the male was 2,35 mm., the female 2,9 mm. long, i. e. in this character
they agreed very closely with the specimens from Lofoten. A re-examination of these specimens
is desirable.
The following sta ternen ts about findsof this species from the west coast of Norway and from
Skager Rak and the North Sea are also presumably to be referred to this species. As, however,
they have no verificatory information and as it is not clear whether a distinction has been
drawn between C. borealis and C. maxima, it seemed to me best not to include them in my list of
synonyms. These finds are as follows: C. borealis, G. O. Sars, 1869, p. 360, 0. NORDGAARD,
1898, p. 17, 1905, p. 40, C. H. OSTENFELD, 1906, p. 96 (part.), C. H. OSTENFELD and C. WESEN
-berg-Lund, 1909, p. 112 (part.), G. Apstein, 1911, p. 167 (part.) and E. Jörgensen, 1912,
pp. 14, 16.
The name C. borealis G. ( ). Sars is also mentioned in the following places in the literature:
G. O. Sars, 1886. p. 75, E. Van hoffen, 1897, p. 285, cf. below, p. 717, C. W. S. Auriyillius,
1898, p. 42, this a uthor 1899, pp. 38, 58 ( P. T. Cleye, 1900), cf. below
p. 717, G. W. Muller, 1901, p. 4, cf. below p. 717, G. H. Fowler, 1903, p. 121; Tu. SCOTT,
1905, p. 228; E. KOEFOED, 1907, pp. 150, 151. 156, 157, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170,
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
