CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 175 



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

 iiiavski, but he is not ahle rightly to determine this species, as Czerniavski's description appears to he 

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

 Nipfiarf/us, and, indeed, from N. puteanus, as in its shorter antenna;, the differently formed hand of the 

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

 genus hetween Niphargus and Gammarus." He also remarks that N. caspius is very probably the 

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



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

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

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

 with clearly ohserved crystal-cones. At AA'iidensweil, at a depth of 40 metres, along with seeing forms, 

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

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

 Gammarus pulex 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 arc concerned, 

 states that they are not " des Niphargus avec des yeux, 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, p. 180]. 



C. Pabona [85], in 1880, discovered hlind "Shrimps" in the cave of Monte Fenere, Val Sesia, 

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

 He gives a general history of the species, stronirly 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 third uropods, 

 as frequently happens ^ath Niphargus [78, p. 43] . In this paper Parona also describes a new species of 

 Titanethes, viz. T. fenei-iensis. 



Max Weber, in 1879, published a paper " IJeber Asellus cavaticus, SchiiJdte" [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 difl'erences between it and A. cavaticus, Schiodtc, 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 unable 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 Typhloniscus Steinii, 

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



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

 Greiz." 



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

 describe a new species of the genus Ccecidotea, viz. C. nickajackerisis, 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 antennae and slightly purplish colour and the proportions 

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

 Caves; on the other hand, C. stijgia 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 

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



