i894. SOME NEW BOOKS. 65 



not a naturalist altogether superfluous. It strikes us, for instance, as 

 somewhat curious to find (p. i) the camel referred to as one of the 

 oldest living mammals, while a few lines further on it is stated that 

 its prehistoric ancestors are unknown. The context shows that this 

 statement is due to Andrew Murray's belief in the close alliance 

 between the Siwalik and modern camels ; but if the author had con- 

 sulted authorities on the subject he would have found that they are 

 very different, and his confusion between a species and a genus is too 

 obvious to need pointing out. When, moreover, the author (p, 2) 

 states that " it is a curious fact that the former description [? distri- 

 bution] of the family seems to be much wider than the natural 

 habitat of the forms now extant — a fact which may, perhaps, be 

 attributed to the Deluge, and the sundering of what in those days 

 were vast globes into smaller and insulated continents," he is not 

 only a bit behind the times, but likewise most remarkably enigma- 

 tical. Still more startling is the assertion on the same page — made 

 on the authority of a South African friend who has compared the figures 

 — that the Helladothevium of Pikermi, instead of being, as we have all 

 supposed, a near cousin of the giraffe, is nothing more than a camel ! 

 What will our friend Dr. Forsyth Major think of this as the result of 

 all his labours to instruct the public ? Other instances of miscon- 

 ception and error might be referred to, but we can only call attention to 

 the assertion, on p. 22, that a camel has twelve molars on each side of 

 the upper jaw, and ten in the lower, as a sample of the anatomical 

 blunders disfiguring what is otherwise an excellent work. 



Blind Crustacea. 



The Subterranean Crustacea of New Zealand: with some general remarks on 

 the Fauna of Caves and Wells. By Charles Chilton, M.A., D.Sc. Trans. 

 Linnean Soc. London, ser. 2, Zoology, vol. vi., pt. 2, May, 1894. 



This paper treats of the curious blind Crustacea which inhabit the 

 underground waters of the Canterbury Plains in the South Island of 

 New Zealand, The author leads off" with an historical account of 

 previous writings on the subject, and gives a fuller bibliography at 

 the end of his paper. Detailed descriptions of the six New Zealand 

 forms follow, and the author then passes to the more general con- 

 siderations which we present as interesting to the majority of readers. 

 One of the characteristics of these underground Crustacea is the 

 absence of colouration. The integument and greater part of the body 

 is colourless, and though traces of colour (pink or yellow) are occasion- 

 ally observed, this is the result of the yolk of the egg in females, the 

 liver tubes, or the red colour of the fluid in the vascular system (in 

 worms). In comparing these subterranean forms with deep-water 

 organisms which often show a more or less definite colouration, the 

 author is inclined to believe that the difference in colour is due to 

 some differences of chemical composition rather than to the presence 

 or absence of light. Professor S. I. Smith has previously stated that 

 the darkness existing beneath 2,000 fathoms of water is very difi"erent 

 from that existing in ordinary underground caverns. 



With regard to eyesight, Mr. Chilton observes that in the New 

 Zealand specimens he has been unable to find any external trace of 

 eyes except in one species, Crangonyx compactiis, in which the eye is 

 represented by two or three imperfect lenses apparently quite without 

 pigment. He has as yet had no opportunity of making sections to 

 study the conditions of the optic lobes and nerves. On the whole, too, 

 the New Zealand forms give only a modified support to the conclusion 



F 



