114 A REVISION OF THE ASTACID. 
mens, second-form males and females, from Bradford, Ind., collected by A. S. 
Packard, Jr., labelled (apparently in Dr. Packard’s hand) “ Cambarus spinosus 
Bundy,” in one case “Cambarus spinosus Bundy, jide Bundy.” They are cer- 
tainly not C. spinosus, which is a Southern species with a short areola. I 
think they are young C. rusticus, some of them possibly C. Putnam. The 
areola is rather broad for C. rusticus, and the male appendages are rather 
short for C, Pu/nani. In some of these specimens the rostrum is broad and 
nearly plane (in this resembling C. obscurus), and even a little carinated near 
the tip. The tips of the fingers are orange-color preceded by a dark ring. 
All the forms mentioned above agree in having an excavated rostrum 
with thickened margins, a long and narrow areola, the first pair of abdomi- 
nal appendages of the first-form male furnished with a projecting angle on 
the anterior margin at base of rami (except in the C2 plucidus from Quincy, 
IIL, in which this angle is obsolete), the rami long and straight or the outer 
one somewhat recurved. ‘The chele have a double row of low, inconspicuous 
tubercles on their inner margin. They vary somewhat in the width of the 
rostrum and areola, in the development of the spines of the rostrum, cara- 
pace, carpus, and meros, in the length and curve of the fingers, and in the 
length of the rami of the first abdominal appendages. After a careful com- 
parison of all the specimens before me, I am inclined to unite them all as 
forms of C. rusticus. 
In the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 
are five dry specimens of this species (Nos. 126*, 126°), which, according to 
the labels, came from the State of Pennsylvania. Two of these are labelled 
by Dr. Hagen “@. placidus.” Three (126%, 126°, Philadelphia Co. and Pitts- 
burg) are in the same box together, labelled “A. Bartonii” by Gibbes, “C. affi- 
ms” by Hagen; and on pages 62 and 78 of his Monograph Dr. Hagen says 
that the types of A. Bartonii Gibbes in the Philadelphia Academy are C. affinis 
Say. When I examined the Philadelphia collection in December, 1882, they 
seemed to me surely C. placidus Hagen. No. 126” in the same collection, 
labelled “GC! affinis Say (C. Bartonii Gibbes),” is the true C. Bartonii, from Dela- 
ware. There is little chance that transposition of labels has taken place, as 
the number is pasted upon the specimens, and Gibbes’s label and the original 
locality label bear the same number. 
