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.
belongs to the above-mentioned genus Pyrocypris, although even on this point it may be
impossible to get full evidence.
This assumption is supported by the following reasons:
First tliere is the faet that Cypridina Reynaudi has the same characteristically
elongated type of shell as distinguishes Pyrocypris.
Secondly tliere is nothing in Milne Edwards’s description against this identification,
apart, of course, from statements that are obviously due to mistakes in observation on the
part of this author, such as, for instance, the absence of the rostral incisur.
In addition, a reason that is — in my opinion — rather strong is to be found in the
statement as to the locality of the find: The species in question was captured in the Indian
Ocean. — Several species of Pyrocypris occur in this ocean, some of them even in enormous
numbers. As an example of this it may be mentioned that no less than 20 000 specimens
of P. Chier chiae were caught in these regions in a single haul (G. W. Müller, 1890, p. 232).
To this it may be added that species of this group attract attention by their intense
phosphorescence, and, on account of their pelagian life, are very easy to catch, reasons that must
of course be taken into account when we are dealing with a form that was apparently captured
quite accidentally.
On the other hand, of ail the specimens to which G. W. MÜLLER, 1912 etc. and other
authors applied — apparently arbitrarily — the name Cypridina, it may be said with very
great probability that they are not closely related to Cypridina Reynaudi.
As no other forms either — except those belonging to Pyrocypris — are known so far,
which can with any great probability be considered as closely related to the species described
by MlLNE Edwards, it seems to me justifiable and convenient to use the name Cypridina for
the last-mentioned group of forms.
As the type species of this sub-genus it may be convenient — in accordance with the
above-quoted statement — to take the species investigated by W. Lilljeborg. Identifiable
material of this form (four specimens) is still preserved in the collections of the Zoological Museum
of the University, Uppsala.
It may, on the other hand, not be appropriate to give this species the name Reynaudi
MILNE EDWARDS; Lilljeborg’s identification is evidently too uncertain. — Do the specimens
investigated by Lilljeborg belong to a species that lias been mentioned and described later?
As far as I can decide, they seem to belong to Pyrocypris inermis G. W. MÜLLER. I cannot,
however, be quite certain on this point on account of the incompleteness of this species of
Müller’s.
If my identification is correct, P. inermis would thus be coveniently taken as the type
species of the sub-genus Cypridina.
Diagno.-is oj the In G. W. MÜLLER’s diagnosis of the genus Pyrocypris it is stated (botli in 1906 b, p. 16
and 1912, p. 16) that the equipment of the distal bristles of the male first antenna in this group
agrees with that in the genus Cypridina (sensu MÜLLERI), and also that the endopodite of the
second antenna is furnished with four or five bristles. — With regard to the former character
it is to be noted that in the sub-genera Vargula, Macrocypridina and Cypridinodes, in other
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
