ORTMANN: THE CRAWFISHES OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 393 



from iiurthern iiidividuiils of the same size. The other characters incHne 

 toward the typical badoni, while the shape of the carapace varies to the other 

 extreme. 



A single male of the second form, about 60 mm. long, from Deer Park, (iarrett 

 County, Marj'land, sent to me for examination liy Dr. 1'. U. I'hler of Baltimore, was 

 found under a lot of typical C. Iiartoiii, (supposed to be ('. diojenets). This male 

 agrees fairly well with the specimens from Kentucky. The cai'iipace is rather cylin- 

 drical ; there are no lateral spines on the carapace ; the punctures of the areola are 

 like those of (.'. bartonl ; the cheUc, which are unequal, and apparently both regen- 

 erated, have rather distinct impressions on the upper surface, but the inner margin 

 has only one row of tubercles. The rostrum is of the robustu-^-iype. Thus, of the 

 characters of robustus, only the shape of rostrum and the impressions of the chelte 

 were present, all other characters being those of typical bartonl. 



Specimens possessing a rather elongated rostrum, but with the other characters 

 of typical bartonl, 1 liave seen associated with individuals of the typical form taken 

 at Gettysburg, Adams ("o., Pa. (Dep. Agric, HarrLsburg) ; Imt these I have recorded 

 with typical C. bartoni. (See above, p. 385.) 



It is very desirable that the southern form in Maryland, \'irginia, Kentucky, and 

 adjacent localities, should be investigated more closely. The records at hand, and 

 the few, immature specimens the writer has seen, do not permit a final conclusion 

 as to whether we have to deal in the south with a form differing from that in the 

 north, oi- not. The same reason forbids us to restore our C. robu.stu.s to the rank of 

 a species, which I surely would have done if the Pennsylvania!! material alone 

 were to be considered. 



In Pennsylvania ('. bartoni robustus is not always associated with C f)arloni. I 

 found it thus in every case in Allegheny County, in ( 'rawford County, and in War- 

 ren County. In ^IcKean County I found it associated with C. obsciirns in the Alle- 

 ghany River at Larabee, but the typical C. bartoni was not there, although occurring 

 not far away in .small streams and springs. In Erie County C. bartoni was found 

 only twice, in l"lk ('reek ami \\'alnut ( "reek, associated witli C Jmrtoni robustus, but 

 then only a single individual of the former was found in each case. At Albion and 

 Union ( 'ity ('. bartoni robustus alone was present, and I am sure of it, since I hunted 

 for C. bartoni, but without success. The rich material from Northeast (forty-four 

 specimens are now in the Museum, but many more were originally in the lot) did 

 not contain a single C. bartoni. Thus it is beyond doubt that C. bartonl roltu.^lus is 

 not infrequently found irlthout the typical form, and chiefly so in the most n«»rthern 

 and western sections of the state. 



