HARDWICKE'S SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



193 



ON BRITISH FRESHWATER MITES. 



By C. F. GEORGE. 



No. I. 



T has often been a 

 matter of great 

 surprise to me, 

 that in these days 

 of microscopic in- 

 vestigation, with 

 such a large army 

 of lovers of pond 

 life, and the exist- 

 ence of an estab- 

 lishment for sup- 

 plying living spe- 

 cimens for the 

 microscope, be- 

 sides the numerous 

 exchanges con- 

 stantly going on 

 (as testified every 

 month by Sci- 

 ence-Gossip), 

 that nobody should 

 have taken up as a subject the "British Freshwater 

 Mites." Of course they must have been seen, ex- 

 amined, and admired, probably too, been frequently 

 made a subject of study, but, so far as I know, no- 

 body in this country has hitherto given us the result 

 of his investigations ; of course I do not mean to 

 say, that there have not been isolated papers, in 

 journals and periodicals, but even these have been 

 very few, and so scattered, that it would be a great 

 labour to search for and collate them. The "Micro- 

 graphic Dictionary " gives us some definitions and 

 figures, but these are chiefly, if not altogether, taken 

 from Walckenaer's " Apteres." A. Murray also, in 

 that very cheap manual of his, "Economic Ento- 

 mology" — " Aptera," published as one of the South 

 Kensington Museum Handbooks, gives us some 

 little information on the subject, but it is all borrowed, 

 some of it erroneous, and therefore, misleading. On 

 the continent, however, some magnificent and most 

 laborious works have been published, but, so far as 

 I know, none very recently. Just a hundred years 

 ago, 1 78 1, O. F. Miiller published in Latin a very 

 No. 213. — September 1882. 



valuable treatise, entitled " Hydrachnse quas in 

 Aquis Danire palustribus," &c., accompanied by 

 most excellent plates. The most important work I 

 have yet seen is in German, somewhat expensive and 

 difficult to meet with ; I have no copy of my own, 

 but have had the opportunity and great pleasure of 

 seeing the book belonging to the Quekett Club (be- 

 ing a member of that society), I mean C. L. Koch's 

 " Deutschland's Crustaceen," &c., a work of great 

 labour and the highest merit, supplemented also in 

 1842 by his " Uebersicht." Kramer, too_, has pub- 

 lished papers in Germany (some of which I have 

 seen), and probably other foreign authors have done 

 the same — there is also Walckenaer's "Apteres" in 

 French — but all these works, important as they are, 

 are in some foreign language, and practically non- 

 existing to many of the readers of Science-Gossip, 

 especially to such as, like myself, are busily occupied 

 with some profession, far removed from good libraries, 

 from scientific fellowship or societies, and who only 

 take up microscopic natural history as a recreation 

 from other, to them, more important work. 



With the editor's permission, therefore, I am about 

 to give some of the results of my own observations 

 on " British Freshwater Mites," hoping they will ex- 

 cite others to take up the subject, and that, eventu- 

 ally, somebody may be found possessing the necessary 

 time, artistic skill, and powers of investigation to 

 give us a history of British Hydrachnidre, accompanied 

 by portraits and drawings of microscopic details, far 

 in advance of anything which has yet appeared, in 

 this, or any other language. In order to make a 

 good foundation, and to avoid or explain the inherent 

 difficulties of our subject, it will be necessary to lay 

 down certain definitions, and, though there is no rale 

 without an exception, we must make these definitions 

 as rigid as possible. Water mites then are defined 

 as wingless insects, living in or under water, having 

 the head, chest and abdomen united, and possessed 

 of eight legs, a pair of jointed palpi, and two or four 

 eyes. Miiller also adds, six eyes ; but, so far as I 

 know, no other observer has met with water mites 

 with six eyes. As I said just now, there is no rule 



K 



