AN ACCOUNT OF THE CRUSTACEA OF NORWAY Vol 03-01-02, By Sars

AN ACCOUNT TIIK ol' CRUSTACEA OF N O R WAY WITH SHORT DESCRIPTIONS AND FIGURES OF ALL THE SPECIES BY SARS G O VOL Ill CUMACEA PART I & II CUMID^E, LAMPROPID^E (part) WITH 16 AUTOGRAPHIC PLATES BERGEN PUBLISHED BY THE BERGEN MUSEUM SOLD BY ALB CAMMERMEYER'S FORLAG CHR1STIAXIA 1899 INTRODUCTION and very peculiar group of Crustacea, the systematic position of which has been much debated among zoologists, most of the earlier authors referring them to the lower Decapods, whereas in recent Ihe Cumacea form a sharply-defined The time they have generally been placed close to the Isopoda materially from both of these groups, and should thus (lifter fact is that they more properly be consi- dered as constituting a distinct order, occupying its place between the great divisions Podophthalmia and Edriophthalmia that the embryonal development of the Isopoda; but shown by Dr Dohrn, It is true, inded, as first Cumacea agrees very nearly with in all other respects these Crustacea exhibit, in closer relationship to the Podophthalmia than to the Isopoda it is mon, though those anatomical external the of a reflexed palp of the epipodite on the in some of the which characters Schizopoda are been adduced specially and different; the cheliferous Isopoda, 1st pair of maxillipeds, Schizopoda, still very certainly features in com- as even proofs of the pre- viz., on the anterior maxilla?, and the peculiar development the recent arrangement of the scarcely be supported have Cumacea with the near relationship of the sence is appearance my opinion, a much Among the former, Cumacea have many with which the chiefly the Schizopoda that of the On e g may be found Gnathophausia Cumacea In my quite as distinct therefore, opinion, as a sub-order of the Edriophtiialmia can the other hand, I consider that the differences from the great enough to forbid of the Cumacea being included in the great division Podophthalmia Our knowledge of these singular Crustacea does not date from very The first form recorded is probably that described by Lepechin in the long ago year 1780, genus Oniscus scorpioides, which has turned out to be a species of the Diastylis Colonel author as Montagu, Another and designated by erroneously believed Crustacea Cumacean form was observed that the the very solitary same in specific the year name; specimen found was 1804 by but this a defective Decapod (Astacus) that had lost its head In the year 1828, H Milne-Edwards observed apparently the same form, and established for its reception the genus Cuma; and is it from this Another genus, however, genus that the name of the whole order viz that of Diastylis, is, in fact, having been established by the American zoologist Say, rather of a in the still is derived earlier date, year 1818 It is strange that the founder of the typical genus Cuma, H Milne-Edwards, subsequently altogether abandoned this genus, believing the form upon which was founded to be only a larval form of some higher Crustacean roneous assumption was entertained by the many Cumacea should be wholly discarded from and ; it this er- other authors, according to whom the zoological system, as only re- animals Certainly both Kroyer and Goodsir in the year to be perfect animals, and added several new the Cumacea showed 1841, clearly species; but there was still for many years doubt among zoologists as to the presenting immature Thus Dana, true nature of these Crustacea not include the Cumacea in his great work on Crustacea, did at all in his carcinological system, urging in support of this action a statement given in 1852 by the celebrated Prof L Agassiz, who claimed to have witnessed the escape of true Cumacea from the ova of Hippolyte and other Carids Meanwhile the investigation of these problematical Crustacea was continued by several distinguished zoologists, Kroyer, Sp Bate, and Prof Lilljeborg, and them agreed in absolutely Cumacea of denying the larval nature of the Cumacea, giving most convincing reasons for their opinion the all Notwithstanding this, were declared by a high authority, Prof H immature animals, and were placed in the same rank as even in the year 1858, Milne-Edwards, to be Phyllosoma, Erichtiis, Zoea and other larval forms As will nowledgement appear from the Cumacea of the carcinological system, first is above short historical account, the general ackas perfect animals worthy of being ranked in the of comparatively recent date The number detected was a very limited one, and they were generally single genus, Citma referred to a Subsequently, a few additional genera were established, but some of these have turned out Sp Bate comprised all of species at all to be spurious, being founded only on the male sex the genera at that time established, within a single family, that of the Diastylidw, which he believed to be nearly allied to the Stomatopoda by the investigation of several zoologists, the number of both species and genera has considerably increased, and it accordingly appeared very In recent desirable times, to group together the several genera division of the original family was made in the year The first in a suitable manner, by a sub- attempt to 1879 by the present author, effect such a classification who, in his account of the Mediterranean Cumacea, arranged the 18 genera at that time known, in distinct families, ('/ni/xlo', viz., Vaunthompsoniidce, followed is proposed, yet has been Pl(tl//w : ii I - / G Sars autogr Trykt Diastylis-Cuma LampropsPseudocuma-Campyiaspis i den private Opmaaling.Chra Anatomy G.O Cumace a Sars autogr PI LXVII Trykt Leucon- Diastylis i den private Opmaaling.Chra Anatomy Cumace a P1.XXX11I G.O Sars autogr Trykt Leucon-iDiastylis He mi lam props i den private Opmaaling,Chra Development Cumace a PI.LXIX a '-' V V3 ~-i, , G.O yfe r -^^;^ ^- TV* ^HisK Sars autogr Trykt Diastylis i den private Opmaaling.Chra Diastylidae Pl.LXX I >