CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 171 



AltLougli tlescribcd iu Cope's paper " Ou the Wyandotte Cave and its Fauna," this species is not from 

 that cave, but from the Mammoth Cave, and had been referred to as a " Gammaroid Crustacean " iu an 

 earlier paper by Cope [29] . 



F. Leydig [74, p. 2G9] had, in 1871, i-ecorded the existence of Asellus cavaticus in the Falkenstein 

 Cave. This species is usually referred to as Asellus cavaticus, Schiodte, and consequently was, I presume, 

 first mentioned under that name by Schiodte ; but, unfortunately, the works at my disposal do not enable 

 me to say where Schiodte mentions it, or what information, if any, he gives about it. Bovallius, in his 

 "Notes on the Family Asellidae," in his list of synonyms of the species, gives no reference to any paper 

 on the subject by Schiodte, and says, " As Schiodte never has given a diagnosis of A. cavaticus, and 

 none of the following authors, using that name, did describe the animal, the name A. cavaticus must be 

 rejected, and substituted by A. Sieboldii, Ph. de Rougemont" [15, p. 11]. 



A. Fkic [42, p. 246, fig. 95], in 1872, recorded the existence of Gammarus puteamis in wells at 

 Prague, Bohemia; but, according to Wrzesniowski [124, p. 605], his observations on the subject are of 

 little value, the third uropods, for example, being represented as seven-jomted ! 



R. WiEDERSHEiM [122] fouud iu 1873, in a small lake in the Falkenstein Cave, about 600 ft. from 

 the mouth, an eyeless Gammarid which he does not describe, but believes to be the same as Gammarus 

 puteamis from wells at Tiibingen. 



Apparently also in the same paper he gives an account of the habits of Asellus cavaticus. See Packard 

 [83, p. 149]. 



S. Fries [43], in 1874, also studied the fauna of the same cave, but found only one example of 

 a bHnd Gammarid. lie thinks this to be the descendant of the eyed Gammarus jjule.i: Vw'mg in the 

 neighbourhood outside the cave, and strengthens his opinion by observations on Gammarus fossarum 

 kept during the winter in the dark, which lost pigment and whose eyes paled ; but, as Humbert points 

 out, Fries does not appear to have been acquainted with the genus Nipliart/us and tlie characters bv 

 which it is distinguished from the true Gam/narus. Sec Humbert [62, p. 289]. Fries also appears to 

 have referred in his paper to Asellus cavaticus, Schiodte. 



F. A. FoREL, in a series of works on the deep-water fauna of the Lake of Geneva, repeatedly mentions 

 an interesting crustacean under the name Gammarus ccecus. This, I presume, is the species afterwards 

 fully described by Humbert under the name Niphargus puteanus, var. Forelii [<i2]. 



Eugene Simon [101], in 1875, enumerates and shortly describes several species of Crustacea living 

 in caves, among them " Nipliaryus subterraneus [Letich) =putea)rus (C. Koch), aqullex, and stygius, 

 (Schiodte), Carniola, also in wells." (Dr. von Martens, ' Zoological Record' for 1875.) 



Ph. de Rougemont [89], in 1875, published an exhaustive paper on Gammarus puteanus, Koch. He 

 had found five different forms in a well at Munich and a sixth form at Neuehatel, the last having been 

 previously described by Godet. He fully describes the various sense-organs, recognizes the olfactory 

 cylinders on the flagellum of the upper antcunte as organs of smell, and explains the fact that they 

 are longer in the blind Gammarus jmteanus and Asellus from wells than in Gammarus pulex and Asellus 

 aquaticus as a natural compensation made to the former for their want of sight. 



De Rougemont was astonished to find five different forms so nearly allied living together iu a 

 single well, and at not finding any small forms similar to the larger kinds ; consequently he came to the 

 conclusion that all these five kinds as well as the large one from Neuehatel are simply difl'erent stages 

 in the life-history of the one species, and he states that he has seen individuals pass at the moulting 

 of the exoskeleton from the first form [Crangonyx subterraneus) to the second {Niphargus Kochianus), 

 and that he has seen the transformation also from the fourth form into the fifth. He concludes there- 

 fore that the genera Crangonyx and Niphargus ought not to be separated, since they represent different 



SECOND SERIES. — ZOOLOGY, VOL. VI. 23 



