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.
1.15—1.53, o = 1,15—1,45 nun. There is, in addition, the faet that this description of
G. W. MÜller’s is too incomplete to permit of a quite certain identification of the species and
also that there are a number of differences between this description and the specimens
investig-ated b y me. This is shown by a comparison between G. W. MüLLER’s pl. XXXII, fig. 9, the
shell of the female seen from the side, and my fig.6.
For these reasons I also thought it best not to include in this list E. Chierchiae, G. W.
MÜLLER, 1908, p. 80. No information at all is given in the latter work as to the lengths and types
of the specimens that were caught.
The identification of Paraconchoecia oblonga, P. T. Cleve, 1900, as determined by J. G.
Andersson, is based on a re-examination of the original specimens. (J. G. Andersson does
not seem to have been quite certain about the correetness of this identification of his, as he had
added a query on the label; this was not included, however, by P. T. Cleve.) Only two males
were found in the two samples. Of these the specimen from lat. 33° 17’ N., long. 74° 2’ \Y.
had a shell 1,17 mm. long, the specimen from lat. 42° 9’ N., long. 42° 15’ W. was 1,23 mm. long.
The latter specimen was characterized by the faet that the two valves were furnished
postero-dorsally witli a moderately long spine; cf. fig. 3. Otherwise they agreed with the other
specimens of this species investigated by me.
Under these circumstances it did not seem convenient to me to include E. Chierchiae,
P. T. Cleve, 1904, p. 370 in the list of synonyms given above; this form has no description
or verificatory figures.
The inclusion of E. Chierchiae, G. S. BRADY, 1902 a as a synonym of the form described
above is due not to any far-reaching resemblance between G. S. Brady’s description and figures
and the specimens investigated by me, but to the faet that the description worked out by me
above is baseel on the same material as formed the basis of this writer’s description. (I cannot
understand how V. VÄVRA was able to identify this species of G. S. Brady’s with E. Chierchiae,
G. W. Müll ER, 1890 a without a re“exammation of the original material.) The followmg
differences are noteworthy: Length of the shell in the female = 0,85 mm. The first antenna
of the male has a very long bristle (about as long as the whole antenna) dorso-distally on the
second joint; the female first antenna also has a bristle dorsally, but this is mueh shorter than
that of the male. (Does this ,,bristle“ correspond to the rod-shaped organ?) The end joint of
the endopodite of the second antenna has only two bristles in the female. The mandible has
a longitudinal row of hairs on the first and second endopodite joints (= the exopodite bristle?).
The furca has only five claws. (This is a good illustration of the uncertainty in this writer’s
method of description!)
A7. VÂVRA’s form E. Chierchiae, 1906, p. 29, has not been included as a synonym, first
because the description given by this writer is too uncertain to permit of certain species
identification, and secondly because there are a number of differences between this description and
the specimens examined by me.
P. T. CLEVE, in his work of 1905, p. 131, synonymizes Halocypris aculeata, Tu. SCOTT,
1894, with Euconchoecia Chierchiae; no reasons are given for this. This synonymization was
accepted by Tn. Scott himself in two later works, 1909, p. 129 and 1912a, p.588; this author
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
