. Studies on marine ostracods : pt. 1, Cypridinids, halocyprids and polycopids. odite, is. according to this method of bo considered as the remains of an opipodial appendage; cf. the accompanying figure VII: 1. liiiili. Unhiypridae. ( iipridae. Dnrtiiii iilidae. Sesideidiif >i/llieridae and (i/llierellidai: (i/pridiiiidne. Siir-sirllidac niiil .{.?.Ifrnpidnr. 4S IvdH sivOftSBEua According to the second aiethod of explanation the last-mentioned collection of bristles is tobe considered as a remains of the exopodite, the two distal joints presumably represent theendopod
. Studies on marine ostracods : pt. 1, Cypridinids, halocyprids and polycopids. odite, is. according to this method of bo considered as the remains of an opipodial appendage; cf. the accompanying figure VII: 1. liiiili. Unhiypridae. ( iipridae. Dnrtiiii iilidae. Sesideidiif >i/llieridae and (i/llierellidai: (i/pridiiiidne. Siir-sirllidac niiil .{.?.Ifrnpidnr. 4S IvdH sivOftSBEua According to the second aiethod of explanation the last-mentioned collection of bristles is tobe considered as a remains of the exopodite, the two distal joints presumably represent theendopodite; the protopodite has the same extension as according to the former method ofexplanation; cf. fig. VII: 2. The collection of bristles that is in most cases to be found on the posterior edge of thepart that has been explained as a protopodite is thus, in my opinion, to be considered as therudiment of a homologon to the vibratory plate on the preceding limb. This assumption seemsto be supported both by the position of these bristles and by the fact that they are sometimes. Iic MI. — Sixth limb nt (y/jridiiin medilerrnnea O. Costa (From G. W. Mullkr. 189i). 1. According to ..the lirslmclhod of exphvnatioii. 2. According to „tlu second method of explanation the first alternative. attached to a lobe-like process, though the latter is small. It seems, at least at present, to beimpossible to prove this assumption. For the cause of a possible reduction of this vibratoryplate see G. W. Mt)LLER, 1894, p. 198. There is no part that might be explained as an endopodite according to the firstiiietiiod of explanation* (as in the fifth Umb). We must note the uncertainty that, in my opinion, exists in both the methods of explanationdescribed above, with regard to the boundary between the protopodite and the branch situated(listally of this. Perhaps only the proximal joint, the one that in most cases is characterized by ha-ving two bristle-bearing endites on the anterior edge, is to be co
Size: 2554px × 978px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1920, booksubjectostraco, bookyear1920
