AMPHIPODA OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 143 
on Crangonyx [21] and on the rudimentary eyes of Miphargus 
[34], and Armand Viré [23] deals with two species of the latter 
genus in his work ‘La Faune souterraine de France,’ issued 
during the present year. 
In North America several similar Amphipods have been dis- 
covered and have been described by Cope [24], Packard [25j, 
Forbes [27], Benedict [26], &c.; full information of the cave- 
fauna of North America will be found in Packard’s larger memoir 
published in 1888, and he has rediscussed some of the theoretical 
bearings of the facts in a subsequent paper [35]. 
The New-Zealand forms first recorded by me in 1881 and 
1882 are fully described in my paper in the ‘ Transactions of the 
Linnean Society’ in 1894 [28. pp. 163-284]. Closely allied 
Amphipods, but with normal eyes, were described from Tasmania 
by G. M. Thomson in 1892 [29]; and within the last yeara blind 
species of Miphargus has been found by O. A. Sayce in Gippsland, 
Victoria, Australia [30. pp. 152-159]. 
Distribution of the British Species. 
Owing to the isolated localities in which they are found and 
to the fact that specimens have fallen into the hands of many 
different observers, a large number of species of Miphargus has 
already been described, some of them probably on insufficient 
grounds. In his revision of the genus in 1890 Wrzesniowski 
gives a list of 14 species, six, however, he marks as doubtful; 
and Stebbing [31. p. 425] has since suggested that one of these, 
Niphargus Moniezi, may perhaps more appropriately find a place 
under Neoniphargus. On the other hand, Chevreux has recently 
described a new species, V. Virez, from the grottos of the Jura 
and tells me by letter that he has other new species to describe. 
Other writers, such as de Rougemont and Della Valle, again, 
have supposed that the different species described are merely 
forms of one wide-spread species, and have caused great confusion 
by reducing them all to synonyms of Miphargus puteanus, Koch. 
The latest effort of this kind is that of Hamann [83. p. 234], who 
recognizes neither Miphargus nor Crangonyx, and classes all the 
subterranean Amphipods of Hurope under Gammarus puteanus, 
Koch. It is almost incredible that he should come to this con- 
clusion after avowedly studying Wrzesniowski’s work, and 
it will be evident to all that he has quite failed to appreciate 
