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.
The great resemblance between Y. VAyra’s and my figures of the male shell and the rod-shaped
organ ought specially to be pointed out.
It also seems to me quite certain that G. W. MÜLLER’s species C. oblonga, 1906 a,
comprises the species dealt with here. On the other hand it seems less certain that the material
investigated by G. W. MÜLLER for this work was pure from a systematic point of view. With
regard to the shell this writer distinguished two forms, which he termed a and b, and the
rod-shaped organ in the males investigated by him was subject to rather far-reaching variation.
This is particularly noteworthy because neither C. CLAUS nor V. YAyra mention any variation
although they had abundant material at their disposai; C. CLAUS writes, for instance, with
regard to this species . . . „die in zahlreichen Exemplaren untersucht werden konnte und zu den
am besten charakterisirten Formen gehört“, 1891 a, p. 64, and V. Vävra found and investigated
this species from no less than 39 different stations.
Nor have I observed any variation in this species myself; on the contrary the specimens
investigated by me agreed well with the types described by C. CLAUS and V. VAvra, as I have
pointed out above; we must note, however, in this connection that the material investigated
by me contained only a small number of specimens of this species. I have nevertheless accepted
the définitions made by G. W. MULLER, because this writer put forward reasons (1906 a, p. 58)
that seem to support fairly decidedly the idea that we are concerned with a species with a rather
great amplitude of variation.
C. Claus in his work of 1891 a, p. 64 identified the species Conchoecia variabilis described
by G. W. MÜLLER, 1890 a with this species; as C. Claus himself pointed out, however, this
identification was very uncertain because of the incompleteness of G. \Y. MUller’s description.
In a later work, 1906 a, G. W. Müller himself accepted this identification, but with the
reservation that only a number of the specimens investigated by him (1890 a) were identical with
this form.
It is impossible to decide whether Paraconchoecia oblonga, G. S. BRADY, 1897, p. 95
is identical with the species dealt with above. It is true that this writer gives a couple of figures,
pl. XVII, figs. 20 and 21, but they are so incomplete that no conclusions in this direction can
be drawn from them.
This species is also mentioned in G. S. Brady and A. M. Norman s work of 1896, but
we only find here a translation of the information previously given by C. CLAUS.
That Paraconchoecia oblonga, C. Claus, 1894 is not identical with the species dealt
with above is shown quite clearly both by this writer’s description and his figures. This form
is, as G. W. Müller has already previously pointed out, presumably identical with Conchoecia
procera G. \V. MULLER. For P. oblonga P. T. Cleye see the remark under Euconchoecia
Chier-chiae below; for Conchoecia oblonga, G. \V. MULLER, 1890 a, see this writer 1906a.
The name Conchoecia (or Paraconchoecia) oblonga (C. Claus) is also mentioned in the
following places in the litera ture: C. Claus, 1893, p. 286, G. S. Bkady, 1902 a, p. 199 (- 1903,
p. 337 and A. M. Norman, 1905, p. 155), G. H. Fowler, 1903, p. 121 and P. T. Cleye. 1904,
p. 370 and 1905, p. 132. As no descriptions or verificatory figures accompany these Statements
it did not seem to be convenient to include them in the list of synonyms given above.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
