86 Trans. Acad. Sci. of St. Louis. 



In this volume my former suspicion that in the above 

 mentioned paper on the eyes of Typhlomolge Rathbuni 

 Stejneger the word Typhlotriton, wherever it appears, 

 should in reality read Typhlomolge, seems to be proven 

 correct. At least in the part of this paper referred to, 

 as it is reprinted in the large volume, this change from 

 Typhlotriton to Typhlomolge is made. This chapter is 

 followed by one which is an exact reproduction of the 

 above mentioned paper on the eye of the Missouri cave 

 salamander by Eigenmann and Denny. This in turn is 

 followed by "Conclusions as to the eye of Typhlotriton 

 spelaeus," which are the exact reproduction of the con- 

 clusions given as a summary after the description of, 

 what I now think, should have been the eyes of Typh- 

 lomolge Rathbuni, although it was always called Typh- 

 lotriton. (See page 83.) After these conclusions, in 

 reality referring to the eye of Typhlomolge, comes finally 

 a "Summary in regard to Typhlotriton," which is the 

 exact reproduction of the summary following the orig- 

 inal paper of Eigenmann and Denny. (See page 84.) 



What is a student to make of such contradictions, when, 

 he reads, for instance, on page 40, "The lens has van- 

 ished, etc.," and on page 41, "The lens is normal," and 

 so on, apparently referring to one and the same species? 



In an address delivered as president of the Indiana 

 Academy of Science (Proceedings 1899) by C. H. Eigen- 

 mann, entitled "Degeneration in the eyes of the cold- 

 blooded vertebrates of the North American caves," this 

 author again says about the eyes of Typhlotriton "the 

 dioptric arrangements are all normal; the retina is nor- 

 mal in the young, but the rods and cones disappear with 

 the change from the larval to the adult condition." 



Of the six specimens of Typhlotriton spelaeus from 

 Marble Cave, Mo., which I had for examination, the 

 smallest — a larva — was 90 mm. long, and the largest 

 measured 115 mm. Of the two smallest ones one still 

 had gills and no eyelids, the other no longer showed a 

 sign of gills, but, also, had no eyelids. (See Figs. 1 and 



