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.
In addition — unlike the shell of Ph. Mac Andrei — it is quite without any covering of hair.
The agreement between this type of shell and that of C. (Vargula) megalops is striking. As is
seen from the information given above, the females of the genus Philomedes have extremelv
strongly reduced lateral eyes or else the latter are quite absent. The species discussed by
W. Baird has, on the other hand, large, well-developed lateral eyes, composed of about twentv
ommatids. In this point too it thus agrees with C. ( V.) megalops. It can be considered certain
that the first antenna does not belong to any species belonging to the genus Philomedes-, this
is shown partly by the description quoted above- and partly by the figure reproduced by W. Baird
(fig. 1 e). Everything indicates, on the contrary, that we are concemed with a first antenna
of a species belonging to the the sub-family Gypridininae. I wish here only to point out that
a long powerful bristle issues posteriorly on the fifth joint (W. Baird says the fourth joint, but
this writer has clearly overlooked the boundary between the third and the fourth joints).
With regard to the natatory antenna it is clear from W. BAIRD’s figure that only the bristle
of the second joint on the exopodite is relatively short, without natatory hairs and furnished only
with short secondary spines; the bristles on the third to the fifth joints are long natatory bristles
with natatory hairs. There seems to be no endopodite on this limb. The latter faet may perhaps
seem to support the identification of this species with G. O. Sars’s C. (Vargula) megalops, as
the endopodite is, as we know, very mueh reduced in the latter species. Two reproductions of
the mandible — which Baird took to be the second antenna — are given, both very incomplete
and impossible to use for the purpose of identification. One of these, fig. c, seems probablv
to belong to a species of the sub-family Gypridininae, the other (fig. e*) to a Philomedes species!
Additional facts could be given to show that this species of Baird’s is not identical with
the species dealt with by me above. It seems, however, superfluous to do so, as those already
mentioned ought to be more than sufficient to show the impossibility of this identification.f
The first to identify this species of Baird’s with LiLLJEBORG’s species was G. S. Brady.
1868 b, p. 467. As a reason in favour of this identification only the following is given: ,.I have
not had the opportunity of examining the type specimens of this species; but as I b e 1 i e v e
Dr. BAIRD considers them to be identical with Bradycinetus globosus, I have here adopted
that view.“
It is consequently a very weak argument, which of course cannot influence in any way
the statement made by me above as to the necessity of rejecting this synonymization. The
name brenda is therefore not the right one to use for this species.
It may, on the other hand, be taken as absolutely certain that the species described by
W. JjlLLJEBORG, 1853, p. 171. under the name of Cypridina globosa is identical with the form
dealt with by me above. There are certainly differences in some details between LielJEBOKg’s
description and the facts observed by nie — for these I need only refer the reader to a comparison
between my description and Lili.JEBORG’s — but it is certain that these are to be accounted
for by errors of observation on the part of LlELJEBORG. The type specimen of this species of
f It does not seem right defini t ively lo iden t if y Cypridina brenda with C. (Vargula) megalops — in which case
the latter name would be rejected. The reasons for Ilds identification are loo weak. Il seems Inst, ni lenst for the present,
to let this species of Baikd’s inerease the list of unidenlifiable species.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
