86 Trans. Acad. Sci. of St. Louis. 
In this volume my former suspicion that in the above 
mentioned paper on the eyes of Z'yphlomolge Rathbun 
Stejneger the word T'yphlotriton, wherever it appears, 
should in reality read T'yphlomolge, seems to be proven 
correct. At least in the part of this paper referred to, 
as it is reprinted in the large volume, this change from 
Typhlotriton to Typhlomolge is made. This chapter is 
followed by one which is an exact reproduction of the 
above mentioned paper on the eye of the Missouri cave 
salamander by Higenmann and Denny. ‘This in turn is 
followed by ‘‘Conelusions as to the eye of T'yphlotriton 
spelaeus,’’ which are the exact reproduction of the con- 
clusions given as a summary after the description of, 
what I now think, should have been the eyes of Z'yph- 
lomolge Rathbuni, although it was always called Typh- 
lotriton. (See page 83.) After these conclusions, in 
reality referring to the eye of T'yphlomolge, comes finally 
a ‘‘Summary in regard to T'yphlotriton,’’ which is the 
exact reproduction of the summary following the orig- 
inal paper of Eigenmann and Denny. (See page 84.) 
What is a student to make of such contradictions, when, 
he reads, for instance, on page 40, ‘‘The lens has van- 
ished, ete.,’’ and on page 41, ‘‘The lens is normal,’’ and 
so on, apparently referring to one and the same species? 
In an address delivered as president of the Indiana 
Academy of Science (Proceedings 1899) by C. H. Higen- 
mann, entitled ‘‘Degeneration in the eyes of the cold- 
blooded vertebrates of the North American caves,’’ this 
author again says about the eyes of T'yphlotriton ‘‘the 
dioptric arrangements are all normal; the retina is nor- 
mal in the young, but the rods and cones disappear with 
the change from the larval to the adult condition.’’ 
Of the six specimens of T'yphlotriton spelaeus from 
Marble Cave, Mo., which I had for examination, the 
smallest—a larva—was 90 mm. long, and the largest 
measured 115 mm. Of the two smallest ones one still 
had gills and no eyelids, the other no longer showed a 
sign of gills, but, also, had no eyelids. (See Figs. 1 and 
