2sEM' CRAYFISHES FROM FLORIDA HOBBS 393 



areola in different places or to his including tlie light-colored areas 

 bordering the sutures. 



Female. — One or two additional spines are present along left rostral 

 ridge, otherwise like first-form male. 



Annulus ventralis movable. Cephalic portion hidden beneath two 

 projections from the sternum just anterior to it. (See fig. 15, i.) 



Measurements. — ^Male, form I: Carapace, height 0.9G, width 1.21, 

 length 2.46 cm. ; areola, width 0.07, length 1.05 cm. ; rostrum, width at 

 base 0.32, length 0.54 cm.; abdomen, length 2.55 cm.; right chela, 

 inner margin of palm O.SO, width of palm 0.47, length of outer margin 

 of hand 2.14, length of movable finger 1.22 cm. Female: Carapace, 

 height 0.92, width 1.27, length 2.52 cm.; areola, width 0.07, length 

 1.07 cm.; rostrum, width at base 0.31, length 0.5G cm.; abdomen, 

 length 2.50 cm. ; right chela, inner margin of palm 0.52, width of palm 

 0.32, length of outer margin of hand 1.39, length of movable finger 

 0.73 cm. 



Type locality.— Lonnherg's types came from an underground rivulet 

 about 42 feet below the surface near Lake Brantley, Orange County, 

 Fia. My neotypes are from Palm Springs, Seminole Coimty, Fla., 

 not more than 2 miles from Lonnberg's locality. 



Disposition of neotypes. — Male (form I), niiile (form II), and the 

 female, on which the above description is based, are deposited in the 

 United States National Museum, together with four males (form II) 

 and four females. The remaining 33 specimens are in my own 

 collection. 



Relationships. — Cambarus acherontis probably finds its closest 

 affinities with the group of Cambarus adrena. 



Remarks. — In 1902 (p. 277), Ortmann included Cambarus acherontis 

 along with 15 other species in the first group of Cambarus. On the 

 basis of the first pleopod of the first-form male, however, it should be 

 referred to his second group with C. advena. In 1905 (p. 102) he seems 

 to have been influenced in the formulation of his key to species and 

 probably also in his grouping by Faxon's determination of his speci- 

 mens from Gum Cave as C. acherontis, thus further confusing the 

 taxonomic status of this misunderstood species by referring it to the 

 group of C. blandingi. 



Faxon's record (1914, p. 368) of C. acherontis from Eustis, Lake 

 County, is based on two second-form males and seven females, all 

 immature. I have examined these specimens and find that, although 

 they have their closest affinities with C. lucifugus lucifugus from Gum 

 Cave, they are certainly not identical with that subspecies, for I have 

 carefully compared the immature specimens from Eustis with im- 

 mature lucifugus lucifugus from Gum Cave. I believe they represent 

 an undescribed subspecies of lucifugus because of the morphological 



