140 James L. Gooch and Jeffrey S. Wiseman 
Table 4. Pairwise comparisons of eye/body length ratios vs. antenna 1/body 
length ratios (top) and uropod 3/body length ratios vs. pereopod 7/ 
body length ratios (bottom) of males of rank ordered localities. Single 
asterisks indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level, double asterisks 
at the 0.01 level, using the Mann-Whitney U Test. 
Eye/body 
EM 
SH 
GR 
CU 
MK 
CC 
P-I 
P-II 
JC 
EM 
- 
* 
SH 
** 
* 
♦ 
- 
* 
- 
TD 
GR 
* 
♦ 
O 
CU 
- 
♦ * 
** 
sfs* 
c 
MK 
* 
- 
- 
- 
< 
CC 
♦ 
- 
- 
- 
P-I 
** 
- 
- 
♦ 
♦ 
- 
P-II 
** 
♦ 
- 
** 
- 
- 
JC 
* 
** 
* 
EM 
SH 
GR 
Uro-3/body 
CU MK 
CC 
P-I 
P-II 
JC 
EM 
- 
♦ 
- 
- 
- 
SH 
** 
♦ 
- 
- 
- 
** 
GR 
* 
♦ 
** 
~o 
o 
CU 
** 
** 
X) 
MK 
** 
- 
** 
** 
- 
<u 
D- 
CC 
- 
- 
- 
♦ 
♦ 
** 
P-I 
♦ 
** 
- 
- 
- 
- 
P-II 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
* * 
JC 
** 
** 
** 
0.64 at Marklesburg to 0.90 at Cunninghams. Although Holsinger and 
Culver found generally larger amphipods in cave populations, there is no 
evident trend toward larger size in either sex in our less epigean sites. 
The last four columns of Table 3 display length ratios and feature 
two points of interest: nonsystematic interdemic variation in ratios, and 
systematic variation associated with rank in the habitat scale. Non- 
systematic variation was assessed by testing the ratio arrays of all charac- 
