dttaSS&iCa* 
MMfcotdaiwS 
******* 
122 MEMOIRS OF THE RATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 
and having slenderer fore tibia, and in general the body and links are slenderer than in the speeies 
of Trechus. But, remarks Bedel (in Liste gen. des articules cavernicoles de l’Europe, p. 32): 
Les nombreases d6couvertes qu’ont ameniSes, depuis quelqnes aundes, lea explorations des grottes, eelles de 
1’Aribge principalement, ont ndcessitd la reunion des Anophtlialmus et Aphsenops avengles aux Trechus oculds,* 
C’est 4 peine si l’on doit les maintenir aotuellement a litre de sons-genres, tous les passages existant entre ces types 
extremes qui semblaient tout d’abord si nettement caractdrisd. 
Bedel obviates the inconvenience of placing between one and two hundred species into one 
genus by retaining Anophthalmus as a subgenus of Trechus. It seems reasonable, then, so long 
as most of the species*of Anophthalmus are both eyeless and very slender in body and limbs, to 
retain it under a distinctive name. 
In some other coleopterous genera the distinctive characteristic appears to be chiefly the lack 
of eyes. Thus in Le Conte and Horn’s Coleoptera of North America Adranes and Eutyphlus are 
defined thus: “Eyes wanting.” 
The eyeless genus of spiders, Anthrobia, is accepted as a distinct genus. Simon remarks: 
“L’Anthrobia presente presque tous les caracteres des Leptoneta, mais elle est completement 
aveugle.” The completely blind Hadites is said by Simon to be near Agelena, differing “princi¬ 
palement par la proportion de ses pattes et la disposition de ses filieres dont les anterieurs sont 
tres longues et formees de deux articles.” 
For the same reason— i. e., the lack of eyes and the great length of the limbs—the generic 
term Phalangodes should at least be retained for P. armatus of Mammoth Cave. 
Coming to the Crustacea, there are the two generic names Caecidotsea and Orcouectes. The 
former name we applied to the cave and well-inhabiting G. stygia. The name is an unfortunate 
one, having been originally applied to an imperfect specimen without caudal stylets; it bore con¬ 
siderable resemblance to Idotsea, and I did not at first, from lack of specimens of Asellus, com¬ 
pare it with that genus. Csecasellus would be a much more significant name. This genus has 
been usually received by American naturalists who have had occasion to refer to it, but Prof. S. 
A. Forbes, who has done excellent work ou the species of this genus, refers G. stygia to Asellus. 
Besides the lack of eyes, the body is much elongated, and the limbs, especially the antenna;, are 
very long; putting all these features together I think it is a great convenience to designate the 
G. stygia and G. nickajackensis as generically different from the eyed species of Asellus, in which 
the body is much broader and the limbs shorter.- Against this view it maybe said that some 
individuals of G'cecidotcea stygia have rudimentary eyes. Moreover the genus Osecidottea has not 
been adopted by German and Swiss zoologists in referring to the eyeless Asellus forelii Blanc or 
Asellus sieboldii De Rougemout. But in the case of these species the body scarcely differs in 
shape from the common European Asellus aquaticus, the species apparently differing in their want 
of eyes, smaller size, and white color. Until carciuologists unitedly insist that Crecidotaea is neither 
a well-founded genus or subgenus we think it will not be objectionable to retain the use of the term. 
The second case is that of the genus Orcouectes including what are generally known as Camba- 
rus pellucidus and G. hamulatus. The generic term was first proposed by Professor Cope for G. pellu¬ 
cidus, and the second species, G. hamulatus , from Nickajack Cave, was also referred to that genus 
by him. Objection has been made to the use of the term Orcouectes by Dr. Hagen, also by 
myself in 1873, before two additional blind species had been discovered. In his valuable “Mono¬ 
graph of the North American Astacidse,” published before the genus Orcouectes was proposed, 
Hagen writes: “The most aberrant species [of Group I, type acutus] is 0. pellucid us. Like the 
other animals living in caves, it is blind. * * * Nevertheless, the number of the hooked legs, 
the form of the abdominal legs, and the elongated body and hands exclude G. pellucidus from the 
other groups” of the genus. “ Some, no doubt, will prefer to regard G. pellucidus as a distinct 
group or genus, still, as I am convinced, without foundation.” 
In his admirable Revision of the Astacidse Prof. W. Faxon does not admit the validity of 
Orconectes, and states that 0. hamulatus “resembles G. pellucidus superficially, but belongs to 
Group III, with hooks only on the third pair of legs in the male. The first pair of abdominal 
appeudages are very different from those of 0. pellucidus , being formed after the pattern of those 
organs in G. bartonii. The annulus ventralis of the female is also different” (p. 43). 
* Voyez Put.zeys, Trecbornm oculatorum monographia (Stettin, ent. Zeit., 1870, p. 9); et Abeille de Perrin, 
Etudes sur les Coldopteres cavernicoles, 1872, pp. 9-12. 
