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 first antenna is of the same type as in C. Haddoni, but ail the joints seem
always to be bare.
In other respects it resembles C. Haddoni.
Remarks: — It seems to me beyond doubt that the form dealt with by me above is identical
with C. bispinosa C. CLAUS. It is true that a number of small differences may be noted between
the original description of this species and the specimens investigated by me, but these are
presumably due to lack of accuracy on the part of C. CLAUS. It may be pointed ont especially
that in the females investigated by me the second joint of the first antenna was furnished with
a dorsal bristle, while there is no such bristle in the figure of this organ given by C. CLAUS, 1891 a.
To judge from C. Claus, pl. V, fig. 4 and pl. VIII, fig. 7 in the work mentioned the penis of this
species would be subject to a considérable variation. In the male investigated by me this organ
agreed, as has been pointed out above, with the first of these two figures. It is to be noted that
C. Claus does not mention in the text that this organ is subject to variation. Did the penis
reproduced in pl. VIII, fig. 7 belong to a specimen of another species than the one dealt with here?
As is seen above, C. CLAUS states that there was a moderately great variation in the length
of the sliell in this species (1,5—1,8 mm.). The specimens investigated by me also showed a
relatively moderate variation with regard to this character; as is seen above, they resembled
rather closely the specimens investigated by C. CLAUS (1,6—1,95 mm.). Contrary to this,
G. W. MÜLLER points out (1906 a) that the length of the shell in this species is subject to very
strong variation: „Größe außerordentlich schwankend: $, 1,74—3,0, d, 1,66—2,4 mm.“ This
variation was, however, not continuons. We read as follows about it (1906 a, p. 91): „An
manchen Fundorten sondern sich die Individuen deutlich in größere und kleinere, z. B. in
Station 26 $ 1,74, 1,8, 2,5, 2,6 mm; 3d 1.66 mm, 2d 2,3 mm und derartige Funde legen den
Gedanken nahe, daß wir es mit 2 Varietäten zu thun haben, doch finden sich zwischen den
verschiedenen Größen alle Übergänge, auch einen Zusammenhang zwischen Größe und
geographischer Verbreitung vermag ich nicht zu erkennen, ebensowenig wie zwischen Größe und der
verschiedenen Beschaffenheit der Oberfläche, des Frontalorgans und der Greiforgane des
Are we concerned here with a species whose shell shows a very great amplitude of variation
with regard to length or has G. W. Müller confused, two very closely related varieties?
Apart from G. W. Müller, V. Vàvra is the only writer who has touched on this problem.
In his work of 1906 this author distinguishes the larger specimens (<? — 2,5 mm., $ = 2,8 mm.;
no variation is stated in this work) as a new species, C. secernenda*. With regard to the relation
of this species to C. bispinosa V. VÄVRA writes (p. 60): ,,Conchoecia secernenda n. sp. steht
G. bispinosa CLS. nahe, doch ist die Schalenform verschieden und um die Hälfte größer als diese.
Die männliche Hauptborste trägt bei C. secernenda 45 Zähne, bei C. bispinosa 30 Zähne“. The
difference in the shape of the shell between C. bispinosa and C. secernenda is rather slight. To
judge from V. Vävra’s fig. 121 the difference really seems to consist merely in the fact that the
posterior part of the shell is somewhat higher in V. Vävra’s new species; the posterior margin
of the shell is also somewhat less straight in the latter form (in this the latter agrees with the
* There were no small specimens. i. e. C. bispinosa in the material investigated by Y. Vavra.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
