438 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL JVIXTSEUM vol. 91 



crustacean for culinary purposes. Hitherto, it was known only from 

 the streams in virgin forests in Chile and Brazil. Martens regarded 

 it as an endemic South American species." 



In 1892 (p. ccvi) Berg corroborated Lucas' (1876; 1891) observa- 

 tions on the occurrence of Aegla, and its range from the elevated 

 regions of the country to the lowlands, from the Cordillera of Men- 

 doza to the River Plate in the vicinity of Buenos Aires, but there 

 at a distance from the sea. He reported its presence in Uruguay, 

 where he said that it is more abundant and is found [at times] close 

 to the sea coast, as in the rivulets Miguelete and Carrasco, and also 

 in some localities where the fresh water becomes brackish at sea 

 level, and that it had also been found at Minas, about 159 kilometers 

 from Montevideo, in a spring that had been uncovered on a small 

 mountain in the course of excavating limestone. Berg, who appears 

 not to have seen these particular specimens, credited the find to Prof. 

 Arechavaleta, the chemist who examined the water with a view to 

 its utilization by the city. He regretted that the latter failed to 

 state whether the organs of sight were developed in these animals 

 or not. Berg also took occasion to say, on comparison of specimens 

 from southern Brazil, Chile, Mendoza, Buenos Aires, and Montevideo, 

 that it was his belief that Fritz Miiller's A. odebrechtii is the same 

 as A. laevis. 



This same year, Ortmann (1892, p. 246) summarized the distribu- 

 tion of A. ^''laevis'''' and added a new south Brazilian locality record, 

 Sao Lourengo, and figured the mouth parts. 



Not aware that he had been antedated, Nobili (1896, p. 1) thought 

 he had seen the first Aeglas from the Argentine, from San Lorenzo 

 (Jujuy), Tala (Tucuman), and the Province of San Luis. He ob- 

 served that the coloration of the Tala specimens differed from that 

 of the San Lorenzo and San Luis ones. To some degree, at least, 

 I believe color of specific significance in this genus. Nobili also 

 called attention to S. I. Smith's (1869, p. 31) "List of the Described 

 Species of Brazilian Podop[h]thalma," saying that A. laevis had 

 been omitted. Smith (1869, p. 39) made reference to a Galathea 

 am'plectens of Fabricius (1798, p. 415) but believed that "it is prob- 

 ably not a true Galathea.'''' This species in some respects suggests 

 Aegla. According to Fabricius, the carapace of G. amplectens is 

 smooth and the rostrum short and emarginate [forming the orbits] ; 

 but, contrariwise, Fabricius distinctly stated that this species in- 

 habits the ocean off Brazil and that it is luminous at night. The 

 latter phenomenon might have been due to bacterial infection and 

 the reference to a marine habitat in error. However, as this crusta- 

 cean seems to have come under the scrutiny of Latreille (1803, p. 

 199), the author of A. laevis^ as well as that of H. Milne-Edwards 

 (1837, p. 276), and yet was not identified by either of them with 



