10 EINAR LÖNNBERG, CAMBARIDS FROM FLORIDA. 



and from tlie mighty springs that suddenly come to tlie sur- 

 face at difFerent places. It is thns possible that in the future 

 there will be found a riclier eave fauna in tliat State. I dåre 

 not sa}' anj-tliing' about the length of the subterranean rivu- 

 let at Lake Brantley in which Cambarus acherontis is found, 

 but I remember having seen a white specimen of crayfish in 

 »Clay Spring), a large sulphurspring about three miles north- 

 west of Lake Brantle3^ I could not, however, procure that 

 specimen and thus can not be sure, if it was the same species 

 or only an albino of some other kind. I do not, however, 

 think it impossible that the al)ove-mentioned spring is fed 

 from this and other subterranean rivulets all lielonging to 

 one S3'stem. 



If now Camhanis acherontis is a rather young species, it 

 would he of interest to know its ancestors. As it seems to 

 be a rather recent form, it is reasonable to take into consi- 

 deration the normal-eyed forms of (Jambarus still existing in 

 Florida first, the more so as they belong to the same group. 

 There is, however, not much similarity betweenthem. (Jamharus 

 fallax Hagen has quite a different shape of the rostrum with 

 strong lateral teeth, the antennje are shorter than the l)ody 

 and the antennal scale provided with a strong spine at the 

 tip. The carapax is not granulated as in C. acherontis, but 

 has a spine behind the cervical groove and another one at the 

 base of the antennse. The posterior portion of the carapax is 

 comparatively much shorter. The abdomen is longer and tlie 

 basal segment of the telson has three spines on each side. 

 The tuberculated chela' are much larger etc. Camharn-s Alleiri 

 Faxon is more similar to C. acherontis, as far| as concerns the 

 shape of the broad rostrum, but there are many great diffe- 

 rences in other respects. For instance on C. Altcui the poste- 

 rior portion of the carapax behind the cervical groove is only 

 a little longer than half the distance from the cervical groove 

 to the tip of rostrum. The shape of the carapax is ditferent 

 as it is compressed on C. AUeni and only punctuate on 

 the surface. The abdomen is by comparison longer than in 

 C. acherontis and the telson is narrower and the lateral out- 

 lines of the abdominal segments more square or shortly roun- 

 ded. There is no tubercle on the basal segment of the fourth 

 pair of the legs etc. Thus there. is no very close relation- 

 ship between these forms. Let us now make a comparison 



