﻿A 
  NEW 
  CRAYFISH 
  FROM 
  TEXAS 
  HOBBS 
  229 
  

  

  one 
  female, 
  U.S.N.M. 
  No. 
  23551, 
  one 
  male, 
  form 
  I, 
  U.S.N.M. 
  No. 
  23663, 
  

   L. 
  S. 
  Frierson, 
  coll. 
  

  

  Relationships 
  — 
  Ganibarus 
  hedgpethi 
  has 
  its 
  closest 
  affinities 
  with 
  

   C. 
  fodiens 
  and 
  C. 
  hyersi. 
  It 
  is 
  possible 
  that 
  further 
  collecting 
  between 
  

   Indiana, 
  Texas, 
  and 
  Alabama 
  will 
  show 
  that 
  intergrades 
  occur 
  among 
  

   the 
  three. 
  

  

  VanafAons. 
  — 
  Only 
  slight 
  variations 
  were 
  noted 
  among 
  the 
  specimens 
  

   I 
  have 
  examined. 
  Regenerated 
  chelipeds 
  among 
  them 
  are 
  markedly 
  

   different 
  from 
  the 
  normal 
  ones 
  ; 
  the 
  opposable 
  margins 
  of 
  the 
  fingers 
  

   bear 
  no 
  large 
  tubercles, 
  and 
  the 
  immovable 
  finger 
  is 
  usually 
  much 
  

   broader 
  at 
  the 
  base 
  than 
  are 
  those 
  of 
  the 
  normal 
  chelae. 
  

  

  Remarks. 
  — 
  Faxon 
  (1885, 
  p. 
  77) 
  recorded 
  Gaiiibai^s 
  argillicola 
  {0. 
  

   fodieTis) 
  from 
  New 
  Orleans, 
  La., 
  and 
  Kinston, 
  N. 
  C, 
  but 
  stated 
  that 
  

   the 
  specimens 
  on 
  which 
  these 
  records 
  were 
  based 
  were 
  immature 
  and 
  

   "cannot 
  be 
  determined 
  with 
  absolute 
  certainty." 
  Faxon 
  (1898, 
  p. 
  650) 
  

   listed 
  three 
  localities 
  for 
  G. 
  argillicola 
  — 
  two 
  in 
  Texas, 
  Victoria 
  and 
  

   Brazoria, 
  and 
  one 
  in 
  Mississippi, 
  Bay 
  Saint 
  Louis, 
  Hancock 
  County. 
  

  

  Ortmann 
  (1905, 
  p. 
  136) 
  stated 
  that 
  "The 
  localities, 
  Kinston, 
  N. 
  

   Carolina, 
  and 
  Ncav 
  Orleans, 
  Louisiana, 
  given 
  by 
  Faxon 
  in 
  1885 
  are 
  

   doubtful, 
  as 
  admitted 
  by 
  himself. 
  The 
  localities 
  given 
  in 
  1898, 
  Vic- 
  

   toria 
  and 
  Brazoria, 
  Texas 
  (U. 
  S. 
  Mus.), 
  most 
  emphatically 
  need 
  con- 
  

   firmation." 
  

  

  Creaser 
  (1932, 
  p. 
  336), 
  in 
  summarizing 
  the 
  range 
  of 
  G. 
  fodiens^ 
  

   stated 
  with 
  reference 
  to 
  the 
  list 
  of 
  States 
  from 
  which 
  this 
  species 
  had 
  

   been 
  taken 
  (i. 
  e., 
  Michigan, 
  Lower 
  Ontario, 
  Ohio, 
  Indiana, 
  Illinois, 
  

   Mississippi, 
  Louisiana, 
  Texas, 
  and 
  North 
  Carolina) 
  : 
  "The 
  records 
  for 
  

   the 
  four 
  States 
  last 
  named 
  are 
  surely 
  doubtful." 
  With 
  the 
  description 
  

   of 
  G. 
  hedgpethi 
  Ortmann's 
  and 
  Creaser's 
  doubts 
  as 
  to 
  the 
  occurrence 
  of 
  

   G. 
  fodiens 
  in 
  Louisiana 
  and 
  Texas 
  have 
  been 
  justified. 
  

  

  The 
  specimens 
  of 
  G. 
  hedgpethi 
  I 
  listed 
  above 
  from 
  New 
  Orleans, 
  

   La., 
  and 
  Brazoria 
  and 
  Victoria 
  Counties, 
  Tex., 
  are 
  the 
  same 
  ones 
  on 
  

   which 
  Faxon's 
  records 
  of 
  G. 
  argillicola 
  were 
  based. 
  

  

  I 
  have 
  also 
  examined 
  the 
  specimen 
  on 
  which 
  Faxon's 
  Mississippi 
  

   record 
  was 
  based 
  (Bay 
  St. 
  Louis, 
  Hancock 
  County, 
  1 
  female, 
  U.S.N.M. 
  

   No. 
  17278) 
  and 
  find 
  that 
  this 
  specimen 
  belongs 
  to 
  Gambarus 
  hyersi 
  

   Hobbs. 
  While 
  I 
  have 
  not 
  seen 
  the 
  specimen 
  (s) 
  from 
  Kinston, 
  Lenoir 
  

   County, 
  N. 
  C, 
  I 
  feel 
  certain 
  that 
  G. 
  fodiens 
  does 
  not 
  occur 
  in 
  North 
  

   Carolina. 
  Perhaps 
  the 
  specimen 
  (s) 
  in 
  question 
  belong 
  (s) 
  to 
  the 
  

   somewhat 
  closely 
  related 
  Gambarus 
  uhleri 
  Faxon 
  (1884, 
  p. 
  116). 
  

  

  The 
  known 
  range 
  of 
  Gamhai'us 
  fodiens 
  extends 
  from 
  Ontario 
  

   through 
  Ohio, 
  Michigan, 
  Indiana, 
  and 
  Illinois. 
  Creaser 
  (1932, 
  p. 
  

   336) 
  pointed 
  out 
  that 
  a 
  search 
  should 
  be 
  made 
  in 
  southern 
  Wisconsin 
  

   for 
  this 
  species, 
  and 
  it 
  seems 
  probable 
  in 
  the 
  light 
  of 
  the 
  following 
  that 
  

  

  