Kicholls— New Fhreatoirids. 201 
fringed with numerous setae. In the full sized males of Flircatui- 
copais, there is a similar but smaller set of these lamellae, whieli are 
hard (apx^earing ealeified) and tie closely adpressed to the ventral 
thoracic wall, of which they might be taken for mere thickenings. 
These apx^ear to have been altogetlier overlooked in earlier descrixj- 
tious of this form. 
The PowmoN oe Kopiikeatoious in the Phkeatoioidea. 
Eophreatoicus kvrshawi, the type of the new genus, is remarkable 
among known Phreatoicidea in the X't>ssession of a scaly covering, 
although, as out above, it is }Jossible that several s^jecies 
will be found to have letained vestiges of this condition. 
A, slightly wrinkled state of the boily is described by Chilton 
as occurring in F. auatralia and is hgured by ymith for 
several Tasmanian forms. Barnard does not mention it as character- 
istic of F. capcRsia, and in all the species of Amphisoims the body is 
wholly free from wrinkling, nor does it occur in the subterranean 
(New Zealand) sx>ecies of Flnoatoious and the allied subterranean 
genera. 
The shortness of the head seems x)eculiar to this form, but is 
ax^proaclied in A. paiu^tris. The retention of large and x)ro]uineiit 
eyes, like those in Amphiaopus, is doubtless indicative of continuous 
occupation of surface waters, the reduction of the eyes or the blind 
condition of the several sub-alpine or subterranean forms having, 
perhaps,, arisen independently in those forms. 
The vertical groove upon the head which, in my ox^inion, is to be 
regarded as the last evidence, in this family, of an originally free 
maxilliped segment, has already completely disaxd>t^‘i-i'ed in Aiiiphi- 
sopus. It is well developed in E. kershuwi, in F. captoas'w, F. 
australis, F. joyneri, F. assimilis and, therefore, x^resumably in F. 
hirhii (vide Chilton, 1906, p- -74) ; very probably, too, in the several 
Tasmanian sx^ecies, though ymith makes no reference to it in his 
descrix)tions, but tlien he does not figure it in P. australis, in which 
Chilton had x^reviously describecl and figured it. Similarly has Sayce 
(1900) omitted all mention of this structure in F. shcphardi, where it 
may xxn-haxts be absent. If, hoAvever, it prove to l)e xu'csent in the Tas- 
manian forms and in F. slicphai'di, as I should ex]>ect, then F. typicus, 
alone in this genus, would be without it, but would share this 
X:)eculiarity with Flireatoicoides, Hypsimctopus and Uyperoedcsipus. 
All of these forms have a striking resemblance to F. typicus, a like- 
ness most readily to be exjilained by the suggestion that they all 
have their descent from a coinimm blind ancestor already adaxited 
to life in suliterranean watc'rs, which in its turn had derived from a 
surface living form. That siicli surface-living forms existed at a 
time wdiile yet there may have been land communicatii.iis lietween 
Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand is x^i'^ctically established by 
