176 Dll. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTEEEANEAN 



the Middle and Northern States; whether there is an additional species in the Gulf States, from which 

 the present species may have been derived, remains to be seen. 



" The genus Cecidotcea differs from Asellus in the larger and much longer head, the longer claw of 

 the first pair of feet, the much longer telson, and in the rami of the caudal appendages being of nearly 

 equal size, while in Asellus one is minute ; it is also eyeless. The Asellus Forelii of the Swiss Lakes 

 belongs to CecidoUea " [31, p. 880], The statement that one of the rami of the caudal appendages of 

 Asellus is minute is, of course, erroneous, and must have been based on some misunderstanding or 

 erroneous observation. This statement is repeated on p. 19 (evidently copied from above) in Packard's 

 larger paper, but is omitted in the fuller account on p. 29, where the differences between Ccecidotea and 

 Asellus are given in considerably different terms, and it is stated the Asellus Forelii, Blanc, does not 

 belong to Ccecidotea [83, p. 30] . Forbes united Cacidotea with Asellus, as a detailed comparison of 

 ('. styyia "with undoubted Asellus, especially with the admirable plates of A. aquaticus in the 'Crustaces 

 d'eau douce de Norvege,' has failed to reveal any structural peculiarities which could positively serve as 

 the characters of a distinct genus" [41, p. 11]. In 1886, however, Packard still retained the genus 

 Ccecidotea on " taxonomic grounds " [83, p. 30] . 



In the paper now under consideration, Packai'd and Cope write the name of the genus throughout as 

 Cecidotcea, though in establishing the genus Packard had originally spelt it Ccecidotea ; in his lai'ger 

 work again he spells it Ccecidotcea. Bovallius writes it Ccecidothea [15, p. 13]. Whether these varied 

 spellings are intentional or accidental it would no doubt be better to adhere to the original spelling, as 

 suggested by Stebbing [108, p. xx]. 



In the same paper [31, p. 880] a new species, Crangonyx antennatus, Packard, is described and 

 figured. This siDCcies is said to be very different from C vitreus. Cope, and from C. Packardli, Smith, 

 but to present various resemblances to C. f/racilis, Smith, from Lake Superior. 



Chas. Chilton [22], in 1881, recorded the occurrence of subterranean Crustacea at Eyretou, North 

 Canterbury, New Zealand. He briefly described and figured three Amphipods, Calliojnus siibterraneus, 

 Gammarus fray His, and Crangonyx compactus, and one Isopod, Cruregens fontanus, all the species being 

 new. The genus Cruregens is also new, though apparently somewhat nearly allied to Paranthura. A 

 short notice of this paper by Alois Humbert, appeared in the Arch. Sci. Nat. viii. (Sept. 1882) p. 265. 

 A year later Chilton [23] gave a few additional facts on the occurrence and distribution of these species 

 and also described another Isopod, Phreatoicus typicus, nov. gen. et sp., obtained from the same well at 

 Eyreton. These Crustacea have since been obtained at various localities in the Canterbury Plains, and 

 are fully discussed in the paj)er below, in which an additional species, Phreatoicus assimilis, sp. nov., is 

 described from Winchester. Another species of the same genus, Phreatoicus australis, was 

 obtained in 1889 in freshwater streams near the top of Mt. Kosciusko in Australia, and has been fully 

 described by Chilton [26] . It of course possesses eyes, while the subterranean species ai-e blind. 



O. P. Hay [56], in 1882, described a new species of Crangonyx, C. lucifugus, from a well in Abingdon, 

 Knox county, Illinois. It appears to resemble C. tenuis. Smith, but in the third uropod the two rami 

 arc both absent, and the peduncle itself is much reduced. He also describes Crangonyx bifurcus, 

 sp. nov., found in a rivulet at Macon, Mississippi. He says : "The three species, C. gracilis, C. bifurcus, 

 and C. lucifugus, present an interesting gradation in the form of the posterior caudal stylets." Attention 

 has been directed to this point further on (see p. 218). 



Professor Ve.tdovsky [113], in his work on the fauna of the wells of Prague, mentions Niphargus 

 puteanus, but docs not closely describe it. The species seems to be widely spread at Prague. Vej- 

 dovsky shares de Rougement's opinion as to the identity of the various species of Well-Shrimps. 



GusTAV Joseph \Q7'\, in 1882, gives very minutely his observations on the cave-fauna of Caruiola, and 

 describes a species, Niphargus orcimis, previously named by him. He mentions the following species as 



