CEUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND 169 



Bate and Westwood [4]. The parts of the' History of the British Sessile-eyed Crustacea,' by these 

 authors, wliich contained the account of the subterranean forms, apjieared in 1862 [Stebbing, 108, 

 p. 340], though the titlepage of volume i. bears the date 1863. A fuller account of the species already 

 mentioned is given, there is a sliort account of some of the previous works on the subject and of the 

 habits of some of the species, and Nipkiirr/iis aquilc.r, Schiodte, is reinstated as a separate species distinct 

 from N. stijfjius, Schiodte. Under N.fontaniis, the authors say : — " Professor Westwood thinks that this 

 species may be identical with the iV. sfi/ffius of Schiiidte, since both agree in the more robust form of 

 the animal and the shape of the hands; there are, however, other important differences ; as, for instance, 

 the form of the second and third segments of the tail, which, together with the diversity of liabitat, 

 will probably prove to be of specific value" [t, i. p. 322]. Again, under N. Kochianus they say : — 

 "We are inclined to think this species identical with the specimens captured at Bonn, described and 

 figured by Caspary and Hosius, referred to in the synonyms under JSf. aquUe.v, but want of specimens 

 from tliat locality prevents our determining this point" [4, i. p. 325]. 



In speaking of the three species N. af/ni/ce, iV. fontanus, and N. Kochianus, Alois Humbert very 

 shrewdly remarks : — -"A n'en juger que par les descriptions et par les figures intercalees dans le texte 

 ces trois especes semblent etre bien tranchees et faciles a distinguer, mais dans la pratique la determina- 

 tion n'est pas facile " [62, p. 287]. 



De Rougemont has, indeed, united N. font anus and N. Kochianus, as well as Cranqonyj: subtcrraneus 

 with Gammarus puteanus,}Loc\\; but, as will be seen from the remarks below, his identifications can 

 hardly all be accepted. Stebbing says, in connection with this point that " the matter, perhaps, is not 

 yet ripe for final determination" [108, p. 312]. 



It is strange that so little has been written on the Subterranean Crustacea of England : thus I know of 

 no special work on them since the publication of the ' History of the British Sessile-eyed Crustacea ; ' 

 this is the more peculiar when we remember that many points in connection with them were left uncer- 

 tain {Cramiomjx suhterraneus, for instance, being described from a single specimen), and that they are 

 widely distributed in England and Ireland, and probably abundant. 



Camil Heller [58] , in his list of the freshwater Amphipoda of South Europe, says that they all belong 

 to the genus Gammams, Fabric., of which he makes Crangonyx and Niphargus subgenera. He omits 

 Costa's G. Jongicaudatus, and unites Gammarus puteanus, Caspary, Niphargus stygius, Schiiidte, and 

 N.aquilex, Schiiidte, but, according to Wrzesniowski, without giving good reasons for so doing [124, 

 p. 604]. 



Among the freshwater Crustacea mentioned by Heller is Crangonyx recurvus, Grube, which had been 

 found by Grube in 1861 in the Vrana lake in the Island of Cherso, on the Illyrian coast, and described 

 under the name Gammarus recurvus, and was afterwards redescribed by him and placed under Vranqonyx. 

 I regret that I have been unable to get a description of this species, as it would have been interesting to 

 see what relation it bears to the various Subterranean Crustacea of Europe. 



Pratz [88], in 1867, described under the name Gammarus Caspary a new species from a well at 

 Munich, and mentions several remarkable differences between the male and female. In view of the 

 " caracteres contradictoires " presented by this species, and the " polymorphisme " of the Gammari 

 found in the same town by de Rougemont, Moniez tliinks [78, p. 18] that it is very desirable that the 

 Gammari of the wells at Munich should be re-studied. 



W. CzERNiAvsKi [33] , in 1868, described a new species of Niphargus, from the Black Sea, under the name 

 N. ponticns. This species differs from the usual species of Niphargus in the presence of well-developed 

 eyes, in the colour, the gnathopoda, &c. ; and from the small size (2'1 millim.), and the small number 

 of joints in the flagella of the antennae, it is probable that the single specimen obtained was, as 

 Wrzesniowski points out [124, p. 605], a young specimen, and further information regarding the sjiecics 

 is desirable. 



F. Plateau [86] . in his researches on the freshwater Amphipoda of Belgium, inakes special mention of 



