CEU8TACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 175 



Sea at a depth of 35 to 90 fatlioms. The species may, he says, be identical with N. ponticus, Czer- 

 niavski, but he is not able rightly to determine this species, as Czerniavski's description appears to be 

 very defective. He points out that " N. caspius differs in many respects from the other species of 

 Niphargus, and, indeed, from N. ptiteanus, as in its shorter autenu;e, the differently formed hand of the 

 last pair of limbs, &c. ; so that our species may perhaps be regarded as tlie representative of a new 

 gemis between Niphargus and Gammams." He also remarks that N. caspius is very probably the 

 " extinct Gammarid " from which the other species of Niphargus have arisen. 



Professor Aspek [1], in 1880, met in some of the Swiss Lakes a Gammarid which strikingly reminded 

 him of the common Gammarus pulvx. " The lake-form, however, was smaller and of a glassy 

 transparency. Specimens from depths of 140 and of GO metres possessed beautiful organs of vision, 

 with clearly observed crystal-cones. At Wadensweil, at a depth of 10 metres, along with seeino- forms 

 ■were found blind specimens agreeing in the smallest detail with 'Niphargus Forelii' from the 

 Lake of Geneva. Specimens from Oberrieden Dr. Aspen regards as intermediate forms between 

 Gammarus pidex and the 'Forelii' variety oi Niphargus." (See Stebbing [108, p. .508].) Forel, 

 however, though admitting that these are modified so far as the colour and the eyes are concerned 

 states that they are not " des Niphargiis avec des yenx, des Niphargus incompletement modifies," that 

 the hands of the gnathopods and the third uropods are not modified, so that " ils out le type Gammarus 

 et non le type Niphargus" [40, ]). 180]. 



C. Parona [85], in 1880, discovered blind "Shrimps" in the cave of Monte Fencre, Val Scsia, 

 Piedmont. He considers his form to come very close to Niphargus puteatius, var. Forelii, Humbert. 

 He gives a general history of the species, strongly supporting de Rougemont's views. One female 

 specimen with short terminal uropoda specially attracted his attention as showing relation to Crangonyx. 

 Moniez has, however, shown that the specimen in question was mutilated, having lost the thiixl uropods, 

 as frequently happens with Niphargus [78, p. 4.3]. In tliis paper Parona also describes a new species of 

 Titanethes, viz. T. feneriensis. 



Max Weber, in 1879, published a paper" Ueber Asellus caraticus, Schiodte " [116]. 



H. Blanc [11], in 1880, described a new species of the same genus, Asellus Forelii, from the deep 

 waters of the Lake of Geneva, pointing out the differences between it and A. cavaticus, Schiodte, to 

 which it appears to be closely related. 



Both of these species appear to have been referred to by Max Weber [117] in a paper published in 

 1881, but I am nuable to say what information he gives on the subject. 



Max Weber [118], (apparently in 1880), "examined histologically and chemically, and described, the 

 so-called liver of terrestrial, freshwater, subterraneous, littoral, and truly marine species of different 

 orders " of Crustacea. The blind and subterranean forms examined were Ti/phloniscus Steinii, 

 Asellus cavaticus, and Gammarus puteanus. (See Stebbing [108, p. 525].) 



According to Ludwig [75], 1881, Gammarus puteanus has been found "in einen Brunneu zu 

 Greiz." 



Packard and Cope [31], in 1881, investigated the faima of the Nickajack Cave in Tennessee. They 

 describe a new species of the genus Ccecidotea, viz. C. nickajackensis, Packard, in which the body is 

 longer, narrower, and slenderer than in C. stygia, Packard, from the Mammoth and Wyandotte Caves. 

 The authors add :— " This species forms, in the antennfe and slightly purplish colour and the jjroportions 

 of the leg-joints, perhaps a nearer approach to the genus Asellus than that of the Mammoth and Wyandotte 

 Caves ; on the other hand, C. stygia approaches Asellus more in its shorter, broader body, with its 

 shorter, broader abdomen. It seems quite evident that the two species must have descended from 

 diflFerent species of Asellus. Thus far we know of but one species of Asellus, A. communis of Say, from 



