ASTACUS. 149 
tribution. Its extension in Finland, according to Nylander,* is bounded by 
a line passing from Christinestad, on the Gulf of Bothnia, southeasterly to 
Serdobol, at the northern end of Lake Ladoga. © Eastward from Lake Ladoga 
it is found in the Uslanka, a tributary of the Sveer. It seems to be the sole 
occupant of the waters which flow from the south into the Gulf of Finland 
and the Baltic Sea, excepting the streams and lakes that are connected by 
means of canals with the basin of the Volga. In these it is partially re- 
placed by A. leptodactylus. It still holds its own in Lakes Beresai and Bologoe, 
and in the small tributaries of the Msta and the Volkhoy. Finally, it is 
found in some of the small streams of the upper part of the basin of the 
Dnieper as far as Moheelev.”+ According to Gerstfeldt (op. ci/., p. 558), 
A. jluiatilis sometimes passes out from the mouths of rivers into the sea, 
having been captured with marine fishes at a considerable distance from the 
shore on the coast of Livonia. 
To the westward, A. /iiutilis extends into Austria, Germany, and France, 
dividing the field with A. torrentium and A. pallipes. It is difficult to deter- 
mine its southern limits from the literature, on account of the uncertainty 
of the identification. If Scopoli’s Cancer astucus¢ be this form, it is plentiful 
in Lake Kirknitz in Carniola. Belon (op. cit, p. 353) speaks of crayfishes 
in the Po, and Olivi (Zoologia Adriatica, p. 48, 1792) gives “Cancer astacus” 
as one of the animals found in the neighborhood of Venice. Risso (Hist. 
Nat. Eur. Mérid., Tom. V. p. 55, 1826) records A. fuviatilis from the river 
Taggia, province of Porto Maurizio, and Costa includes it in his catalogue 
tools) 2 oD 
of the Crustacea of the kingdom of Naples (Fauna del Regno di Napoli, 
1840). Heller, who distinguishes between A. fivviatilis and A. pallipes, gives 
as localities for the former, Nice, the Po, and Naples. Perhaps these locali- 
ties are simply given on the authority of the older authors just enumerated ; 
in which case, I suspect that the Italian crayfishes may turn out to be the 
* Notzer ur Sallskap. pro Fauna et Flora Fennica. Forhandl. Ny Ser., Heft I. p. 248, 1859. 
+ Kessler, op. cit., pp. 259, 260 [359, 360]. Gerstfeldt (op. ctt., p. 588) reports A. fluviatilis from 
Moscow, but perhaps it was brought there artificially for food, as it is more highly esteemed in this regard 
than its relative, 4. leptodactylus. According to the same authority, there are two specimens of 4. fluviatilis 
in the collection of Dorpat University, labelled 4. pachypus, from Nicolaiev in Southern Russia (Boug River). 
It was formerly found in the Government of Koorsk (uative or introduced ?). See Képpen, Beitr. Kenntn. 
Russ. Reiches, 2te Folge, Bd. VI. pp. 297, 298. It was introduced into Southern Finland in the time of 
John III. of Sweden (1568-92). Middendorff, Sibirische Reise, Bd. IV. Th. 2, pp. $39, 886; Koppen, 
op. cit., p. 297. 
+ Entomologia Carniolica, 1763. Cf. Gerstfeldt, op. ci#., p. 585, who thinks that the large specimens 
recorded from the river Kerka at Gurk may be 4. leptodactylus. Heller, op. cit., p. 215, also gives these 
Carniolian localities for 4. fluviatilis, but whether from his own knowledge or on the authority of the older 
authors I cannot say. 
