qQL 441.5 .C53 INVZ CHILTON THE SUBTERRANEAN CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND 2nd Ser. ZOOLOGY. | [VOL. VI. PART 2. THE ae TRANSACTIONS OF THE SUBTERRANEAN CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND: WITH SOME GENERAL REMARKS ON THE FAUNA OF CAVES AND WELLS. BY Aly CHARLES cHittoN,wa,Dse,rLs, — /N i ERTERP 7 me SATE RECTOR, DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL, PORT CHALMERS, NEW ZEALAND. 0 \ OLogy “J : RY ORES TAGES 2. OB DO. IN: PRINTED FOR THE LINNEAN SOCIETY BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS, RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET. SOLD AT THE SOCIETY'S APARTMENTS, BURLINGION-HOUSE, PICCADILLY, W.,; AND BY LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO., PATERNOSTER-ROW. : May 1894. eS is WONG L Pg. ene = ne eS (6 Pe. [ 163 ] both Uke aHhors fircrdA ugahe ag eae. bi LIFRaARY f BIWIS'0” GF casstacEy 4 Il. The Subterranean Crustacea of New Zealand: with some general Remarks on the Fauna of Caves and Wells. By Cuartes Cuiuron, WA., DSe., LL.S., Rector, District High School, Port Chalmers, New Zealand. Read 20th April, 1893. (Plates XVI.-XXIIT.) CoNnTENTS. Page i, TCG ne aaitladcin cc AERO BOIOenc icc non 0 Oonot Cini. > 2OCC.A OCEANS 163 Ti. [ic(emrgell, Sich ioe oo aaeitcd DO aR EROBEOOTOOb Er 6p.c AeDUnaaran abn an ee Mates, a sie oi0hs/e 165 Ill. History, Distribution, and Occurrence of the New Zealand Subterranean Crustacea ........ 180 IV. Detailed Descriptions of the New Zealand Subterranean Crustacea ...........-..-+.02--4. 185 Isopoda. The Genus Phreatoicus: P. assimilis, sp. noy.; P. typicus, Chilton ; Comparison of the three known species of Phreatoicus ; Special points in the structure of FE VreaioeCUs we ATTN GION OLeP MTEQLOLCUs, «cys tere eet saielvalcie > eiaieiel store ove «ie ae 185 The Genus Cruregens: C. fontanus, Chilton .......... 20. c cece sec eee eens 209 Amphipoda. The Genus Crangonya: C. compactus, Chilton ......-...-+ 00-220 eee 218 The Genus Gammarus: G. fragilts, Chilton ................----.0-- 226 The Genus Calliopius: C. subterraneus, Chilton .......-..-+00 ss eeeees 233 Summary of the more important points in Parb TV. ..........ce cece cece esse eees 244 V. The General Fauna of the Subterranean Waters of Canterbury ............ 0000s eeeeee 246 VI. The Canterbury Plains and their Underground Waters ...........2.... eee e ee ee ee eees 248 Miles@xiein of the suptermanesmi Crustacea)... Jucie selects sistecicsodelsig os 2 cise eetelerei ciel ti is urs oles 253 VIII. The Special Characteristics of the Subterranean Fauna: Colour ; Loss of Eyes; Compensation for Loss of Eyesight ; Food; Arrested Development ; GINS. 4 ooticln oer sap eOdiOEnS 6 oeeke Ha Roop Bea OC aD Seo MeppE nner se ere 259 IX. Bearings of the Phenomena of Subterranean Life on the Theory of Descent .............. 266 2 SUTGLTEGI oo manline do Ga eobe.S OBO SIDID DIDO IDO D CED OROO OO On DOC rn OSSOCIEOBOR DD Lc 272 ToL JWUUGGRSRINT | tisyea thse doc 6 Ub BeBe Cs CEE CUSREC SO uocs DU COUSTCIarGe aORMemcer as Nac 273 Pea Lemrr ene TINE tO) ELLER ayers chat =) ote o i) « whsie.s)6 c\claile «chs che Bas aletueceip che © creiale) s clate, sjeleis alec ef 281 I. Iyrropuction. In the following paper an attempt is made to give a fuller account than has yet been published of the Blind Crustacea found in the underground waters of the Canterbury Plains in the South Island of New Zealand. The existence of similar Crustacea in the caves and wells and in the deep waters of lakes in Europe and North America has long been known, and has attracted much attention, both because of the inherent interest of the subject, and because of the bearing that the facts have on some general questions of Biology connected with the Theory of Descent, particularly on the effects of use and disuse, and on the influence of the environment on the animals. SECOND SERIES.—ZOOLOGY, VOL. VI. 22 164 DR. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN The existence of these animals in New Zealand was first recorded by me [22] about eleven years ago, but the original descriptions, though fairly accurate so far as they go, were very short and meagre, and the figures were rough and crude, and many points were left on which fuller and more complete information was much to be desired. Moreover, during the time that has elapsed since they were first discovered, much additional information has been gathered as to their occurrence and distribution, and no connected account of these has as yet been published. During the same time, too, some important works on the Blind Subterranean Crustacea of other parts of the world have appeared, particularly Packard’s work on the Cave Fauna of North America [83], and Wrzesniowski’s very important memoir on “Three Subterranean Amphipoda” [124]. If we consider the peculiarities of the New-Zealand fauna and flora, and remember that New Zealand forms by itself a distinct zoological province, which has long been more or less perfectly isolated from other provinces, we should naturally expect that the Subterranean Crustacea of New Zealand would present us with some new interesting facts, and that they would differ largely from the similar Crustacea found elsewhere. This proves to be the case. The Subterranean Crustacean fauna is peculiarly rich, and much more varied than that of either Europe or North America; so far as at present known, it consists of six distinct species, three Amphipods and three Isopods, helonging to five different genera. Of these genera Crangonyx is already known from the subterranean waters of Europe and North America, but none of the others have been recorded from underground habitats elsewhere, though one, Gammarus, is more or less allied to the blind Miphargus of Europe, the species of which were indeed originally assigned to Gammarus, and are still so assigned by some writers. Two genera are new : one, Cruregens, belongs to a family, the Anthuride, no members of which were previously known to inhabit underground waters, and the other, Phreatoicus, which now contains three species (two from the subterranean waters of New Zealand, and one freshwater one from the top of the Mt. Kosciusko plateau in Australia), is so peculiar that it forms the type of a new and very remarkable family of the Isopoda. In the following pages I give a full detailed description of the external anatomy of each of these six species, in addition to the brief specific diagnoses and, usually, a discussion on the characters of the genus. Ihave given what is known of their occurrence and distribution, of their habits, and of the peculiarities which they present in common with or in addition to other Subterranean Crustacea; their probable origin is discussed at some length. I have given also a short historical introduction showing the growth of our knowledge on the subject of Cave and Well Sessile-eyed Crustacea; and have concluded with some remarks on the bearing of the facts presented by them on the general questions of Biology. For their kindness in providing me with material, I have to record my best thanks to Mr. R. M. Laing, of the Christchurch Boys’ High School, Mr. E. Wilkinson, of the School of Agriculture, Lincoln, Messrs. J. B. Mayne and W. W. Smith of Ashburton, Mr. D. L. Inwood and Miss Young of Winchester. Mr. W. P. Hay of Irvington, Indiana, U.S.A., has kindly supplied me with specimens of some North-American Subterranean Crustacea. Mr. Smith, of Ashburton, has been particularly zealous and CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND, 165 unwearying in his efforts to obtain specimens for me, and Iam much indebted to him for additional knowledge on their distribution and on the general question of the underground waters of the plains. My friend and fellow-worker, Mr. G. M, Thomson, Science Master of the Dunedin High Schools, has assisted me in many ways by his advice and criticism, and by his kindness in supplying me with works from his library that I could not otherwise have obtained. To many writers I am indebted for copies of their various papers, particularly to Professor A. 8. Packard and to Dr. R. Moniez, who have sent me copies of important works by them on the subterranean fauna of their respective countries; while, in common with all other workers on the Amphipoda, I am greatly indebted to the Rey. T. R. R. Stebbing for the very full and valuable Bibliographical Introduction to his Report on the < Challenger ’ Amphipoda. Situated as I am at the Antipodes, far from the chief biological libraries of Europe and America, to which one would have liked to have recourse, I can perhaps appreciate the full value of this introduction better than those who are more favourably circumstanced in this respect. II. Historica Skercu. The following historical sketch of the growth of our knowledge of the Sessile-eyed Crustacea inhabiting caves and wells is in many respects very imperfect, for I am unable to consult many of the original papers and works quoted; it contains, however, I trust, references to most of the more important works on the subject. In its compilation I have derived much assistance from Alois Humbert’s paper on Niphargus puteanus, var. Forelii [62], Professor Packard’s paper on the “Cave Fauna of North America” [83], from Wrzesniowski’s work on “ Three Subterranean Amphipoda ” [124], and from the bibliographical introduction to Stebbing’s “ Report on the ‘ Challenger ’ Amphipoda” [108]. I have endeavoured to include the Subterranean Isopoda as well as the Amphipoda, but the parts bearing on them are, I fear, much more incomplete than those on the Amphipoda, as there is no general bibliography on the Isopoda at all comparable to that which Stebbing has compiled with so much care and labour for the Amphipoda. Franz von Pauza Scurank, in his account of Gammarus pulex [98, p. 535] says, “ Habitat in aquis, rivis, fontibus ; albissimus dum natat.” From the words “ in fontibus ; albissimus dum natat ” Stebbing [108, p. 31] thinks it is fair to infer that Schrank had seen one of the well-shrimps. If this be so it would appear that we have in this work of Schrank (1781) the first mention of Subterranean Crustacea, W. E. Leacu [72]. The first undoubted reference to “ well-shrimps” appears to have been made by Leach. In the article “Crustaceclogy” in the ‘Edinburgh Encyclopedia,’ published probably in 1813-1814, after Gammarus pulex a species is mentioned [72, p. 403] which is not numbered but “which Mr. Leach considers to be different from pulex.” It came from a well in London. “ It differs principally from Gammarus pulex in having the upper process of the tail much longer. The colour, when alive, was cinereous, but so translucent that the eyes could not be distinguished. It stands in Mr. Leach’s cabinet under the specific name subterraneus.”’ It is evident from this brief description that the animal in question is not a true Gammarus, but is a subterranean species, probably a Niphargus. Stebbing [108, p. 84] thinks it is probably identical with Niphargus aquilex, Schiddte, 22* 166 DR. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN and it is assigned to this species also by Spence Bate and Westwood [4, p. 316]. Wrzesniowski [124, p- 602] thinks that the description given is scarcely sufficient to enable us to decide whether the animal belongs to Niphargus aquilex, Schiddte, or Crangonyx compactus, Spence Bate; but in the latter species the terminal uropoda are not very long, and, as Leach specially mentions that they are long in his specimen, it appears more likely that it is a Niphargus. I. C. Zenker. From a remark made by Zenker in connection with Gammarus pulex, Leydig infers [73, p. 245], and according to Wrzesniowski [124, p. 602] with good reason, that Zenker had met with Niphargus puteanus in Thuringia. Paut Gervats, in 1835, in a paper [46] describing the freshwater Gammarids of Paris, after giving the two species Gammarus pulex, Fabr., and G. Roeselii (=G. fluviatilis, Roesel), says: “ There is also found in the environs of Paris, but only in the water from wells, a third kind of shrimp, remarkable for its small size, which does not in fact exceed 3 or 4 mm.” He considers this simply a “ variété de séjour,” and draws attention to its slender appearance—“ est constamment étiolée””—and to the fact that its eyes are without pigment and not apparent. He names it Gammarus pulex minutus [46, p. 127]. This name he afterwards altered to Gammarus lacteus, but without giving any further description of any value [47, p. 488]. C. L. Kocu [69]. About the same time Koch described a species under the name Gammarus puteanus from wells at Ratisbon (“ Regensburg ”’), giving the following diagnosis: ‘‘G. diaphano- albus, lateribus subochraceis, testis caude inermibus; articulo penultimo pedum 4 anteriorum quadrato.” He does not describe it as blind, but says “Die Augen sind gelb” [69, h. 5, n. 2]. Wrzesniowski gives the species under the provisional name Niphargus ratisbonensis ? [124, p. 673]. Later on Koch describes a variety found “in den Brunnen der Stadt Zweibriicken,” differing from the specimens from Ratisbon in colour and in the shape of the hands of the gnathopoda [69, h. 36, n. 22]. Koch’s work was issued in parts, and it appears to be very difficult to determine the exact date at which each part appeared. See Stebbing [108, p. 158] . H. Mitne-Epwarps, in 1840, describes Gammarus pungens [77, iii. p. 47], from “ les eaux thermales du Mont Cassini en Italie,’ as having “le petit appendice terminal des derniéres fausses pates tout-a-fait rudimentaire, et le grand appendice trés-poilu et A peine épineux.” Spence Bate [5, p. 217, & 4, p. 314] and Stebbing [108, p. 253] consider this a Niphargus. At the same time Milne-Edwards also describes another species, Gammarus Ermannii [77, iii. p. 49], from warm springs of Kamtschatka ; Spence Bate, who saw the specimen preserved in the Museum of the Jardin des Plantes, afterwards placed this species under the genus Crangonyx [5, p. 179]. TuEopor G. TeLiKampr, in 1844, in describing some new species of Arthropoda from the Mammoth Cave of Kentucky, gives, under the head of “ Crustacea, Malacostraca,” the species Triura cavernicola [109, pp. 821, 322, pl. 18]. Schiddte and afterwards Boeck suggested that the species belonged to the Amphipoda, and Dana (Choristopoda, p. 306), in a note says:—“Genus Trivra, Tellkampf, Rhoew forsan affinis.” Stebbing [108, p. 208], after giving a portion of Tellkampf’s description, gives also a copy of his figure, and says that it will suffice to show that the animal cannot belong to the Amphipoda. A. S. Packard, junr., had, moreover, already shown in 1871 that the animal is not a Crustacean at all, but belongs to the Thysanurous Neuroptera, and that it is probably the same as Machilis variabilis, Say: Tellkampf’s erroneous reference of the animal to the Crustacea having been caused by his mistaking the labial and maxillary palpi for feet, and regarding the nine pairs of abdominal spines as feet [82, p. 14]. J.C. Scurépre, in 1847, briefly communicated to the Académie des Sciences de Copenhague the results of his researches on the fauna of the caves of Carniola and Istria, and gives a short diagnosis of Gammarus stygius (93, p. 81]. In a later work, published 1849-51, he minutely described the species, figured it, and formed for it the new genus Niphargus [94, pp. 26-28]. According to Humbert [62, p. 283] he did not notice the great resemblances between his species and Gammarus puteanus, Koch, CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 167 In the same paper, Schiddte also describes with great fulness, and figures, Pherusa alba, Koch, an isopod belonging to the Oniscide. As the name Pherusa was preoccupied, he renames the species Titanethes albus, placing it in “ Ordo Isopoda—Familia Onisci—Tribus Oniscini.’ Owing to Koch’s use of the name Pherusa, earlier employed among the Amphipoda, it appears that Schiédte’s Titanethes has itself been spoken of as an Amphipod. With regard to this species, Spence Bate [4, ii. p. 440] gives the reference “ ‘ Herrich Schiiffer, Contin. of Panzer,’ fasc. 180, pl. 24,” and this, together with the above quoted from Stebbing [108, p. 24], is all the information I can gather on this species, Roperr Caspary [19], in 1849, gave a full account with figures of Gammarus puteanus, Koch, from specimens found at Elberfeld. He was not able to discover eyes, although he examined more than 30 specimens. The small size of his specimens (4-6 mm.) and the absence of eggs from the brood-pouches of the females show, says Wrzesniowski [124, p. 603], that he had to deal with very young specimens. He considers the mouth-parts, but, according to Wrzesniowski [124 p. 603], gives an incorrect figure of the palp of the first maxill. In his list [15] giving the synonymy of Asellus sieboldii, de Rougemont (=A. cavaticus, Schiddte) , Bovallius gives a reference to this paper by Caspary, as follows :—“ 1849... .. Fuhlrott. (Caspary), in Verhandl. des naturh. Vereins der preuss. Rheinlande und Westfalens, Jahrg. 6, fig. ;” thus without mentioning any name as used by Caspary. Iam unable to consult Caspary’s paper, and therefore cannot say what information, if any, he gives on Asellus cavaticus. According to Packard [83, p. 146], Caspary gives a “figure, without name, of Asellus cavaticus, Leydig.” The next entry in Bovallius’s list of synonyms is under the date 1871 [15, p. 11]. A. Hosivs [61], in 1850, sets forth very fully the characters which separate the three species, Gam- marus pulex from running waters, Gammarus fluviatilis (=G. Réselii, Gervais) from still or weakly flowing waters, and Gammarus puteanus from wells. He compares the three species as regards the maxillee, and gives two drawings of the maxille of G. puteanus, taken from Caspary, and retaining the erroneous figuring of the palp. The incorrectness was also pointed out by Spence Bate and Westwood [4, i. p. 311]. A. Costa [32], in 1851, gives, among others in his list of Amphipoda, Gammarus longicaudatus from the drinking-water of Naples, and G. montanus from the Lago del Maltese. Afterwards he admitted that the two were the same, and the first as “ Gammarus longicaudata,” A. Costa, appears alone in his Catalogue [see Stebbing, 108, p. 249]. Wrzesniowski gives the species under Niphargus [124, p- 696-7]. Spence Bate and Westwood, without comment, give it as a synonym of Niphargus aquilex, Schiddte [4, i. p. 316]. J. O. Wesrwoop [120], in April 1853, communicated to the Linnean Society the discovery of a well- shrimp in a well near Maidenhead, England. This was at the time referred to Niphargus stygius, Schiédte, but was afterwards separated under the name Niphargus aquilex by Schiddte [95, pp. 349- 351]. Bate and Westwood point out that Schiddte has been misled into describing it with ‘“ dorso carinato ” by examining dried specimens, but they retain his name Niphargus aquilex on other grounds [4, i. p. 317]. In an anonymous paper on some Crustacea [57], quoted by Stebbing thus :—‘‘ Anonymous (? Halli- day),” Latin diagnoses of the genus Niphargus and the two species N. stygius and N. aquilex are given. The full account of the former is given in English as applying equally well to the latter, except for the differences mentioned in the diagnoses. As these amounted to little more than applying a smooth back to N. stygius, and by mistake a keeled one to N. aquiler, Spence Bate was, he says, misled by this to assume the identity of the two species. Avam Wartre [121] in his ‘ Popular History of British Crustacea,’ in 1857, omits the Gammarus subterraneus, Leach, which he had previously suggested might be “ Gammarus pulex, var. jun.?.” He changes Niphargus stygius, Westwood, into Niphargus aquilex, Schiddte, and asks whether this may not be the Gammarus subterraneus of Leach [see 108, p- 305). 168 DR. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN A. pe LA VaLetre St. Grorce [112], in 1857, published a very minute account of the external and internal anatomy of the well-shrimps found at Cologne and Munich. He ealls the species examined by him Gammarus puteanus, but they are referred by Bate and Westwood to Niphargus aquilex, Schiédte [4, i. p. 315]. His work is illustrated by fine figures, and among other points he draws attention to the sense-organs found on the antenn, remarking, however, that the calceoli increase in size towards the end of the antenne, which, as Stebbing points out [108, p. 304], is certainly not the case in all Amphipoda. C. Cuyzer, in 1858 [28, p. 4], announces Téth’s finding Gammarus puteanus and G. fossarum, Koch, “im Orezy-Garten zu Pest.” C. Spence Bare [6] in 1859, in a paper on the genus Niphargus, Schiddte, establishes two new species, N. fontanus and N. Kochianus, and also describes a new genus, Crangonyx, with the species C. subterraneus. Some discussion on the genus Crangonyx will be found further on (pp. 215-226). R. M. Bruzexivs [17], im 1859, established the new genus Hriopis, with the species E. elongata, habitat in locis profundis maris Bohusie.” The genus Lriopis is evidently very close to Niphargus, Schiéddte, with which it was identified by Boeck. Stebbing also accepts this view; Wrzesniowski, how- ever, retains it as a separate genus, but alters the name to EHriopsis, as Eriopis was preoccupied [124, p. 634]. A. R. Hoean [59 and 60], in 1859, published a paper on the habits, food-supply, and habitat of the species described by Spence Bate, viz., Niphargus Kochianus, N. fontanus, and Crangonyx subterraneus. In his notice of this paper Stebbing mentions that specimens of NMiphargus aquilex, from a well near Tunbridge Wells, lived in his (Stebbing’s) room from January 1886 till March 3rd, 1886, when they all died at about the same time, perhaps from the coldness of the night. Although they were very active in walking about the bottom of their jar, Stebbing never saw them attempt to swim. Another set of about a dozen were placed in a small jar on June 15th, 1886. Two were females with eggs ; these died within a couple of days, surrounded by some rapidly developed parasitic growth ; the others lived on for a considerable time, the last not dying until November 24th, 1886 [108, p. 316]. Wrzesniowski [124, p- 604] refers to these observations on the habits of Niphargus aquilex in captivity as though they had been made by Hogan—a mistake natural enough, considering the way in which they are incorporated with the notice of Hogan’s paper. Hogan published another paper on the same subject in 1861 [60]. Jouannes Lacumann [71], in 1859, describes parasites found in the intestine of the well-shrimp (Gam- marus puteanus), the name being, however, misspelt “‘Grammarus” throughout the paper. The parasites are said to belong to the puzzling group of the Gregarines. (Quoted from Stebbing [108, p. 317].) JoserH Scuost [92] in 1860 published an elaborate monograph, illustrated by 10 plates, on “ ‘Typhlo- niscus—eine neue blinde Gattung der Crustacea Isopoda,” in which he describes the new species Typhlo- niscus Steinii. This species, which belongs to the Oniscidz, is not an inhabitant of wells or caves, but lives, like Platyarthrus, in ants’ nests. It, however, resembles cave-species in the want of eyes, colour of the body, &c., and has been often mentioned as a blind Isopod along with Titanethes albus. This species was afterwards referred to Platyarthrus Hoffmannseggii by Budde-Lund [ 18, p. 199]. Victor Sixx [100], in 1861, repeats Koch’s description of, Gammarus puteanus, but without adding anything new. Srence Bare, in the ‘Catalogue of the Amphipoda in the British Museum,’ published in 1862 [5], gives the following subterranean species, all of which have been already referred to :—Niphargus stygius, Schiddte, with which he combines NV. aquilex, Schiédte (though on further examination this was retained as a separate species) ; NV. fontanus, Spence Bate ; N. Kochianus, Spence Bate ; N. puteanus, Koch; Cran- gonyx subterraneus, Spence Bate; and C. Ermannii= Gammarus Ermannii, Milne-Edwards. He leaves Gammarus pungens, Milne-Edwards, under the genus Gammarus, but adds as a footnote, “ This species appears closely to resemble a Niphargus” [5, p. 217]. CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND: 169 Bare and Wrstwoop [4]. The parts of the‘ History of the British Sessile-eyed Crustacea,’ by these authors, which contained the account of the subterranean forms, appeared in 1862 [Stebbing, 108, p. 340], though the titlepage of volume i. bears the date 1863. A fuller account of the species already mentioned is given, there is a short account of some of the previous works on the subject and of the habits of some of the species, and Niphargus aquilea, Schiddte, is reinstated as a separate species distinct from N. stygius, Schiddte. Under N. fontanus, the authors say :—‘‘ Professor Westwood thinks that this species may be identical with the N. stygius of Schiddte, since both agree in the more robust form of the animal and the shape of the hands; there are, however, other important differences ; as, for instance, the form of the second and third segments of the tail, which, together with the diversity of habitat, will probably prove to be of specific value” [4,1i. p. 322]. Again, under N. Kochianus they say :— “We are inclined to think this species identical with the specimens captured at Bonn, described and figured by Caspary and Hosius, referred to in the synonyms under NV. aquilex, but want of specimens from that locality prevents our determining this point”’ [4, i. p. 325]. In speaking of the three species N. aquilex, N. fontanus, and N. Kochianus, Alois Humbert very shrewdly remarks :—“ A n’en juger que par les descriptions et par les figures intercalées dans le texte, ces trois espéces semblent étre bien tranchées et faciles 4 distinguer, mais dans la pratique la détermina- tion n’est pas facile” [62, p. 287]. De Rougemont has, indeed, united N. fontanus and N. Kochianus, as well as Crangonyx subterraneus with Gammarus puteanus, Koch; but, as will be seen from the remarks below, his identifications can hardly all be accepted. Stebbing says, in connection with this point that “the matter, perhaps, is not yet ripe for final determination ” [108, p. 312]. It is strange that so little has been written on the Subterranean Crustacea of England : thus I know of no special work on them since the publication of the ‘ History of the British Sessile-eyed Crustacea ; ’ this is the more peculiar when we remember that many points in connection with them were left uncer- tain (Crangonyx subterraneus, for instance, being described from a single specimen), and that they are widely distributed in England and Ireland, and probably abundant. Camit Heurer [58], in his list of the freshwater Amphipoda of South Europe, says that they all belong to the genus Gammarus, Fabric., of which he makes Crangonyx and Niphargus subgenera. He omits Costa’s G. longicaudatus, and unites Gammarus puteanus, Caspary, Niphargus stygius, Schdidte, and N. aquilex, Schisdte, but, according to Wrzesniowski, without giving good reasons for so doing [124, p- 604]. Among the freshwater Crustacea mentioned by Heller is Crangonyx recurvus, Grube, which had been found by Grube in 1861 in the Vrana lake in the Island of Cherso, on the Illyrian coast, and described under the name Gammarus recurvus, and was afterwards redescribed by him and placed under Crangonyz. I regret that I have been unable to get a description of this species, as it would have been interesting to see what relation it bears to the various Subterranean Crustacea of Europe. Prarz [88], in 1867, described under the name Gammarus Caspary a new species from a well at Munich, and mentions several remarkable differences between the male and female. In view of the “caractéres contradictoires”’ presented by this species, and the “polymorphisme” of the Gammari found in the same town by de Rougemont, Moniez thinks [78, p. 48] that it is very desirable that the Gammari of the wells at Munich should be re-studied. W. Czerniavskt [33], in 1868, described a new species of Niphargus, from the Black Sea, under the name N. ponticus. This species differs from the usual species of Niphargus in the presence of well-developed eyes, in the colour, the gnathopoda, &e.; and from the small size (2:1 millim.), and the small number of joints in the flagella of the antennz, it is probable that the single specimen obtained was, as Wrzesniowski points out [124, p. 605], a young specimen, and further information regarding the species is desirable. F. Prareav [86], in his researches on the freshwater Amphipoda of Belgium, makes special mention of 170 DR. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN the well-shrimps which he had taken at Ghent, and which had also been collected by Professor Bellynck at Namur. He calls his specimens Gammarus puteanus, Koch, and states that they have triangular, pigmentless eyes. Plateau appears to have been acquainted only with Koch’s work on Niphargus, and ignores the works of later writers. Gustav Josrrn [65], in 1868, recorded the finding of a new species of Niphargus, N. orcinus, in the brooks of the hill-grottoes of Carniola, “ which probably from these reaches the lake of Zirlenitz (Zirk- nitz], where it can be freely gathered. It comes to the surface after sunset in calm weather.”—See Stebbing [108, p. 384]. The full description of this species was not given till 1882. F. A. Forex [88], in 1869, indicated for the first time the existence of blind Gammarids from the deep waters of the Lake of Geneva. Afterwards, in 1873, similar animals were found in the Lake of Neuchatel. Borck [14], in his work published in 1870, gives the genus Niphargus, Schiédte, for the single marine species Hriopis elongatus, Bruzelius. Paut Gover (48, p. 153], in 1871, described three specimens of a Gammarus found in a well at Neuchatel, pointing out the characters by which they differ from Gammarus fluviatilis, and comparing them with G. puteanus, Koch, and G. puteanus, La Valette. Stebbing says that, judging by the figure, it cannot be far removed from Niphargus aquilex, Schiddte [108, p. 1630]. A notice of Godet’s observations on these well-shrimps had been previously communicated to the Société des Sciences naturelles de Neuchatel, by P. Coulon, in 1867. See Wrzesniowski [124, p. 605]. S. I. Smirx [102], in 1871, among other Crustacea dredged from Lake Superior, in North America, describes Crangonyx gracilis, Smith, n. s., and says that it much resembles C. recurvatus [recurvus], Grube, “in the form of the antennule, antenne, gnathopoda, &c., while it differs much in the ultimate pleopoda and in the form of the telson.”’ It is important to note the occurrence of this species, though not blind, in connection with the question of the distribution and origin of the subterranean forms. A. S. Pacxarp, Jun. [81], 1871, in describing the Crustaceans and Insects of the Mammoth Cave, describes an Isopod as a new genus and species under the name Cecidotea stygia. This species was described from imperfect specimens, and its structure and affinities were consequently completely misunderstood. In point of fact it has nothing whatever to do with Jdotea, but comes very close to Asellus, with which it is indeed united by Forbes [41, p. 11]. It will be further noticed in the account of Packard’s larger work on the ‘ Cave Fauna of North America’ [83]. E. D. Corr [80, pp. 6 and 14], in 1872, found in a cave adjoining the Wyandotte Cave an Isopod which he refers to the genus Cecidotea, previously established by Packard, but describes it as a new species, C. microcephala. He gives a description and figure of the species, but owing to imperfect specimens his account is even more unsuccessful than Packard’s: thus he describes and figures the uropoda as “ egg-pouches full of eggs.’’ This is the species which had been referred to by Cope in a previous paper as an “unknown Crustacean with external egg-pouches” [29]. Packard has since united it with his Cecidotea stygia [83, p. 29]. In the same paper [30, pp. 8 and 17] Cope also describes a blind Amphipod under the name Stygo- bromus vitreus, nov. gen. et sp. He says that his genus is nearer to the true Gammarus than to Niphargus, Schiidte ; but his description is very unsatisfactory, and gives no assistance in the attempt to ascertain the true position of the animal. S. I. Smith afterwards referred this species to Crangonyx under the name C. vitreus, Cope, and it appears under this name in Packard’s larger work [83, p- 34]. CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 171 Although described in Cope’s paper “ On the Wyandotte Cave and its Fauna,” this species is not from that cave, but from the Mammoth Cave, and had been referred to as a ‘“ Gammaroid Crustacean” in an earlier paper by Cope [29]. F. Leypie [74, p. 269] had, in 1871, recorded the existence of Asellus cavaticus in the Falkenstein Cave. This species is usually referred to as Asellus cavaticus, Schiddte, and consequently was, I presume, first mentioned under that name by Schiddte ; but, unfortunately, the works at my disposal do not enable me to say where Schiddte mentions it, or what information, if any, he gives about it. Bovallius, in his “ Notes on the Family Asellidz,” in his list of synonyms of the species, gives no reference to any paper on the subject by Schiddte, and says, “ As Schiddte never has given a diagnosis of A. cavaticus, and none of the following authors, using that name, did describe the animal, the name A. cavaticus must be rejected, and substituted by A. Sieboldii, Ph. de Rougemont” [15, p. 11]. A. Frit [42, p. 246, fig. 95], in 1872, recorded the existence of Gammarus puteanus in wells at Prague, Bohemia; but, according to Wrzesniowski [124, p. 605], his observations on the subject are of little value, the third uropods, for example, being represented as seven-jointed ! R. Wiepersuerm [122] found in 1873, in a small lake in the Falkenstein Cave, about 600 ft. from the mouth, an eyeless Gammarid which he does not describe, but believes to be the same as Gammarus puteanus from wells at Tiibingen. Apparently also in the same paper he gives an account of the habits of Asellus cavaticus. See Packard [83, p. 149]. S. Fries [43], in 1874, also studied the fauna of the same cave, but found only one example of a blind Gammarid. He thinks this to be the descendant of the eyed Gammarus pulex living in the neighbourhood outside the cave, and strengthens his opinion by observations on Gammarus fossarum kept during the winter in the dark, which lost pigment and whose eyes paled; but, as Humbert points out, Fries does not appear to have been acquainted with the genus Niphargus and the characters by which it is distinguished from the true Gammarus. See Humbert [62, p. 289]. Fries also appears to have referred in his paper to Asellus cavaticus, Schiddte. F, A. Foret, ina series of works on the deep-water fauna of the Lake of Geneva, repeatedly mentions an interesting crustacean under the name Gammarus cecus. This, I presume, is the species afterwards fully described by Humbert under the name Niphargus puteanus, var. Forelii [62]. EveEnx Simon [101], in 1875, enumerates and shortly describes several species of Crustacea living in caves, among them “ Niphargus subterraneus (Lieach)=puteanus (C. Koch), aquiler, and stygius, (Schiédte), Carniola, also in wells.” (Dr. von Martens, ‘ Zoological Record’ for 1875.) Pu. pe Rovcremonr [89], in 1875, published an exhaustive paper on Gammarus puteanus, Koch. He had found five different forms in a well at Munich and a sixth form at Neuchatel, the last having been previously described by Godet. He fully describes the various sense-organs, recognizes the olfactory cylinders on the flagellum of the upper antenne as organs of smell, and explains the fact that they are longer in the blind Gammarus puteanus and Asellus from wells than in Gammarus pulex and Asellus aquaticus as a natural compensation made to the former for their want of sight. De Rougemont was astonished to find five different forms so nearly allied living together in a single well, and at not finding any small forms similar to the larger kinds ; consequently he came to the conclusion that all these five kinds as well as the large one from Neuchatel are simply different stages in the lite-history of the one species, and he states that he has seen individuals pass at the moulting of the exoskeleton from the first form (Crangonyx subterraneus) to the second (Niphargus Kochianus), and that he has seen the transformation also from the fourth form into the fifth. He concludes there- fore that the genera Crangonyx and Niphargus ought not to be separated, since they represent different SECOND SERIES.—ZOOLOGY, VOL. VI. 23 172 DR. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN states of the same species, and further he proposes to suppress the genus Niphargus, as he considers it only a modification of Gammarus pulex. To the single species Gammarus puteanus, Koch, he therefore refers all the following forms :—I. Form: Gammarus minutus, Gervais ; Crangonyx subterraneus, Spence Bate. II. Form: Niphargus Kochianus, Spence Bate. III. Form: Gammarus puteanus, Caspary : Gammarus puteanus, Hosius; Niphargus fontanus, Spence Bate. IV. Form: Gammarus puteanus, Koch. V. Form: Niphargus stygius, Schiédte ; Gammarus puteanus, Koch, La Valette St. George, and Plateau. VI. Form: a colossal specimen, 33 millim. long, from Neuchatel. These conclusions arrived at by de Rougemont have been very fully criticized by Alois Humbert [62, pp. 294-296], Wrzesniowski [124, pp. 687-694}, and others, who have shown that, in addition to the inherent improbability of some of de Rougemont’s assertions, there are so many imaccuracies, incon- sistencies, and contradictions in his own work and such neglect to notice points of special importance, as, for example, the difference between the undivided telson of Crangonyx and the deeply-cleft telson of Niphargus, that de Rougemont’s views cannot be seriously accepted. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the subject further, and I need only say that I feel quite convinced of the justice and truth of the remarks made on the matter by Humbert and Wrzesniowski. It is of course quite possible that some of the various subterranean species described under Niphargus (Gammarus) are not entitled to full specific rank, but should rather be looked upon as local varieties, which, indeed, we might naturally expect to arise owing to isolation ; but certainly we cannot admit that all the forms mentioned by de Rougemont are modifications due to age, and if Crangonyx subterraneus, Spence Bate, can change at a single moult into Niphargus Kochianus, Spence Bate, it will be useless to attempt to classify Amphipoda into genera and species at all. The existence of five different forms in the single well at Munich, if this really was the case, is not so strange or so unprecedented as de Rougemont seems to have thought it, for the space in which they live is of course not merely the well itself, but the subterranean waters connected therewith, which may be very extended ; and Spence Bate had previously recorded the three species Niphargus fontanus, N. Kochianus, and Crangonyxz subterraneus from the same well at Ringwood, England, while Wrzesniowski has since recorded the two species Niphargus tatrensis and Boruta tenebrarum living together in one well; and I have taken from a single well at Eyreton the three Amphipods Calliopius subterraneus, Gammarus fragilis, aud Crangonyx compactus, as well as the two Isopods Cruregens fontanus and Phreatoicus typicus. A year later, in 1876, de Rougemont published a French translation of his paper on Gammarus puteanus under the title “Etude de la Faune des eaux privées de la lumiére,” and this contained in addition a description of the Isopod Asellus Sieboldii, which Bovallius identified with the A. cavaticus, Schiédte, of earlier writers, though he retains de Rougemont’s name, as he was the first to describe the species [15, p. 11]. S. I. Smrru, 1874, ina work on the Crustacea of the fresh waters of the United States [103], describes both sexes of Crangonyzx gracilis, Smith, an eyed species that has been already mentioned. He also mentions Crangonyx vitreus, Packard, giving under protest Stygobromus vitreus, Cope, as a synonym ; Packard, however, in his last work keeps the two separate [83, p. 34]. Smith also describes Crangonyx tenuis, n. s., “a slender, elongated species with very low epimera, resembling more in form the species of Niphargus than the typical species of Crangonyx.” In 1875, S. I. Siva [104], in a paper on the Crustaceans of the Caves of Kentucky and Indiana, states that Crangonyx (Stygobromus) vitreus, Cope, is very different from Crangonyx vitreus, Packard, of which he had previously, as above stated, given it as a synonym under protest. The latter species is, he says, closely allied to C. gracilis, Smith, from Michigan, Lake Superior, &c., differing principally in the structure of the eyes. In his account of this paper, Stebbing adds, “ Since Packard’s species in any case must yield its specific name, one is led by Professor Smith’s account to regard it as a synonym of Crangonyx gracilis” [108, p. 451]. Packard afterwards refers to the species as C. Packardii, Smith ; but I am unable to find when this name was assigned to it. CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 173 S. A. Forses [41] , in 1876, describes an Amphipod found in a well at Normal, Illinois, under the name Crangonyx mucronatus. This species is, he says, perhaps entitled to rank as the type of a new genus, but for want of material for a more general study of its relations it is left with its nearest allies in the genus Crangonyx. The differences between the sexes are given, the most remarkable being in connection with the telson, which is very largely developed in the male. (See below, pp. 218-219.) Atois Humperr [62} published his description of Niphargus puteanus, var. Forelii, in 1876. Besides a very careful and minute description of this variety, and of another named onesiensis, this work contains much important information on the general subject of blind subterranean Crustacea. After some introductory remarks he gives an historical sketch of previous works on the subject, in the course of which he fully criticizes de Rougemont’s views as already stated, and pointed out that his own observations do not at all correspond with those of de Rougemont: thus among the specimens handed to him by Professor Forel were some very small, only 2 millim. long, which should therefore correspond with de Rougemont’s first form, and belong to Crangonyx subterraneus, Spence Bate; but these, Humbert says, already had the characters well marked, the two gnathopods already having the form of the adult and the telson being deeply cleft. Humbert then considers the characters of the genus Niphargus, and gives a new definition of it. He discusses the place in the genus of his own varieties, and compares them with the species previously described by other authors. He distinguishes two varieties, Niphargus puteanus var. Forelii, from the deep waters of the Lake of Geneva, and N. puteanus yar. onesiensis, from a well at Onex near Geneva, and gives at length the minute differences between thetwo. In considering the origin of the Niphargus found in the Lake of Geneva, he gives good reasons for believing that it is not merely a modification of Gammarus pulex, and concludes that it is probably descended from an ancient genus now extinct; he is inclined to think the Niphargi of the lakes come from those in the subterranean waters. This point was afterwards fully considered by Professor Forel, who finally came to the same conclusion as Humbert, though he had previously thought otherwise [40, pp- 170-183]. In the detailed description of Niphargus puteanus, var. Forelii, that follows, Humbert pays special attention to the various organs of sense. On the head and on the first segments of the pereion, on the dorsal portion, are found “ capsules sensitives,’ and on the upper antenne “ cylindres olfactifs,” “batonnets hyalins,”’ “soies auditives,” and also “ capsules sensitives” like those on the head, &c. The females are said to be distinguished from the males by their smaller size, the brood-plates, and the shorter length of the terminal uropoda. P. Gover [49], in 1878, was induced by Humbert’s criticism of de Rougemont’s work to rectify his measurements of the large specimen from Neuchatel, as his measurements previously given had not corresponded with those given by de Rougemont. In connection herewith de Rougemont stated that he still held to his opinions previously published. J. D. Carra [20], in 1878, described a new species of Amphipod, Gammarus rhipidiophorus, found only in a well at La Ciotat (Bouches-du-Rhéne, France), a hundred yards or so from the Mediterranean; the water in the well becomes brackish in summer. He considers that the genus Niphargus should be given up, as the various differences between them are more or less bridged over by different species. In connection with this question, however, Wrzesniowski points out [124, p. 607] that Catta says nothing about the mouth-parts, in which are found some of the most prominent marks of distinction; and Stebbing also says :—“ The discovery of transition-forms between two genera will always cause some difficulty, but as such forms have probably existed in innumerable cases where they have not been discovered, it is a question how far the discovery of them should be allowed to interfere with well- established distinctions either of genera or species. When Niphargus aquilex and Gammarus pulex are side by side, it is rather the difference of the facies than the likeness which attracts attention” [108, p. 475]. It may here be added, the differences originally laid down between Niphargus and Crangonyx 23* 174 DR. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN have to some extent been bridged over in the same way by species subsequently described, but that still the differences between Gammarus, Niphargus, and Crangonyx are much greater than those between many other genera of the Amphipoda, The main interest in the discussion is its bearing on the question—Have all the species classed under, say, Niphargus, arisen from the parent genus, whatever it may be, by one common origin, or have some of them arisen independently in different localities in which they have been isolated ? Franz Leypic [73], 1878, in his remarks on the anatomy &c. of Amphipoda and Isopoda makes a good many references to the subterranean forms. With regard to the plumose bristles called “ capsules sensitives ” by Humbert, he says that they may be sensitive, but they are not capsules, they are modified pores. “In view of the very varying statements of authors on the eye of Gammarus puteanus, he made investigations from which he determines that the optic ganglion is present, but not the eye, though pigment-spots mimicking the eye have led some observers to believe that an eye existed in fact” (quoted from Stebbing [108, p. 481]). In connection with this point I may add that I have occasionally observed similar pigment-spots in the New-Zealand species, in none of which can I find any external trace of eyes except in Crangonyx compactus, which has two or three imperfect lenses ; some of the cave- inhabiting species of Crangonyx from North America also have imperfect external eyes. It seems probable that there may be great differences in the amount of degeneration of the eyes in different species, and perhaps also in individuals of the same species from different localities. In remarking on the distribution of and distinctions between Gammarus pulex, de Geer, Gammarus fluviatilis, Résel, and Gammarus (Niphargus) puteanus, Koch, Leydig adopts the view of de Rougemont, that Gammarus pulex minutus, Gervais, is identical with Koch’s G. puteanus, which may, of course, be correct enough, while de Rougemont’s other observations are unreliable. F. A. Foret [39], in 1878, in an account of the fauna of the Swiss Lakes, mentions Gammarus puteanus, var. Forelii, Humbert, as being found in “ die ¢iefe Region” in the Lake of Geneva. Gustav JoseruH [66], in 1879, discovered Niphargus puteanus at Venice, and states that their intro- duction into these carefully-covered wells is best explained by the transport of water from the mainland to replenish these wells in the dry season. S. Fries [43], in 1879, discusses the occurrence of Well-Shrimps in the slightly brackish wells of Heligoland, &c., and advocates the view that they must have existed in these localities before the islands were separated from the mainland. He examined specimens from these wells of Heligoland, from the Falkenstein Caves, from the springs running out of the caverns, from the Hilgerhiusen Caves, and from the depths of the Lake of Geneva, and finds no greater differences than would justify the naming of varieties. He therefore follows de Rongemont in uniting them all under the name Gammarus puteanus. From this it appears probable that at any rate some of the described species of Niphargus are to be looked upon merely as local varieties of one and the same species ; but this in no way justifies de Rouge- mont’s inclusion of Crangonyx subterraneus, Spence Bate, with the others, and does not support his statement as to the elaborate series of metamorphoses passed through by the specimens examined by him. In the same paper Fries also discusses the blind Isopod, Asellus cavaticus, Schiddte. He had uniformly found this in company with Gammarus puteanus, which, according to de Rougemont, is its mortal foe. He agrees with de Rougemont that Asellus cavaticus is related to A. aquaticus, very much as Gammarus puteanus is to G. pulex. Judging, however, from the scanty descriptions of Asellus cavaticus that I have been able to consult, the connection between the first two appears much closer than that between the last two. Fries’s remarks lead de Rougemont to repeat that he is still of the same opinion [90]. Proressor Greset [50], in 1879, mentions the finding of Niphargus puteanus in Halle-a.-S. Oscar Grim [51], in 1880, described a new species of Niphargus—N. caspius—found in the Caspian CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 175 Sea at a depth of 35 to 90 fathoms. The species may, he says, be identical with N. ponticus, Czer- niavski, but he is not able rightly to determine this species, as Czerniavski’s description appears to be very defective. He points out that “N. caspius differs in many respects from the other species of Niphargus, and, indeed, from N. puteanus, as in its shorter antenni, the differently formed hand of the last pair of limbs, &c.; so that our species may perhaps be regarded as the representative of a new genus between Niphargus and Gammarus.” He also remarks that N. caspius is very probably the * extinct Gammarid ” from which the other species of Niphargus have arisen. Prorrssor Asrer [1],in 1880, met in some of the Swiss Lakes a Gammarid which strikingly reminded him of the common Gammarus pulex. ‘The lake-form, however, was smaller and of a glassy transparency. Specimens from depths of 140 and of 60 metres possessed beautiful organs of vision, with clearly observed crystal-cones. At Widensweil, at a depth of 40 metres, along with seeing forms, were found blind specimens agreeing in the smallest detail with ‘Niphargus Forelii’? from the Lake of Geneva. Specimens from Oberrieden Dr. Aspen regards as intermediate forms between Gammarus pulex and the ‘ Forelit’ variety of Niphargus.” (See Stebbing [108, p. 508].) Forel, however, though admitting that these are modified so far as the colour and the eyes are concerned, states that they are not ‘des Niphargus avec des yeux, des Niphargus incomplétement modifiés,” that the hands of the gnathopods and the third uropods are not modified, so that “ils ont le type Gammarus et non le type Niphargus” [40, p. 180]. C. Parona [85], in 1880, discovered blind “Shrimps” in the cave of Monte Fenere, Val Sesia, Piedmont. He considers his form to come very close to Niphargus puteanus, var. Forelii, Humbert. He gives a general history of the species, strongly supporting de Rougemont’s views. One female specimen with short terminal uropoda specially attracted his attention as showing relation to Crangonyz. Moniez has, however, shown that the specimen in question was mutilated, having lost the third uropods, as frequently happens with Niphargus [78, p.43]. In this paper Parona also describes a new species of Titanethes, viz. T. feneriensis. Max Weser, in 1879, published a paper ‘‘ Ueber Asellus cavaticus, Schiidte” [116]. H. Buanc [11], in 1880, described a new species of the same genus, Asellus Forelii, from the deep waters of the Lake of Geneva, pointing out the differences between it and A. cavaticus, Schiddte, to which it appears to be closely related. Both of these species appear to have been referred to by Max Weser [117] in a paper published in 1881, but I am unable to say what information he gives on the subject. Max Weser [118], (apparently in 1880), “ examined histologically and chemically, and described, the so-called liver of terrestrial, freshwater, subterraneous, littoral, and truly marine species of different orders” of Crustacea. The blind and subterranean forms examined were Typhloniscus Steinii, Asellus cavaticus, and Gammarus puteanus. (See Stebbing [108, p. 525].) According to Lupwie [75], 1881, Gammarus puteanus has been found “in einen Brunnen zu Greiz.” Packarp and Cope [31], in 1881, investigated the fauna of the Nickajack Cave in Tennessee. They describe a new species of the genus Cecidotea, viz. C. nickajackensis, Packard, in which the body is longer, narrower, and slenderer than in C. stygia, Packard, from the Mammoth and Wyandotte Caves. The authors add :—“ This species forms, in the antennz and slightly purplish colour and the proportions of the leg-joints, perhaps a nearer approach to the genus Asellus than that of the Mammoth and Wyandotte Caves; on the other hand, C. stygia approaches Asellus more in its shorter, broader body, with its shorter, broader abdomen. It seems quite evident that the two species must have descended from different species of Asellus, Thus far we know of but one species of Asedlus, A. communis of Say, from 176 DR. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN the Middle and Northern States; whether there is an additional species in the Gulf States, from which the present species may have been derived, remains to be seen. “The genus Cecidotea differs from Asellus in the larger and much longer head, the longer claw of the first pair of feet, the much longer telson, and in the rami of the caudal appendages being of nearly equal size, while in Asellus one is minute; it is also eyeless. The Asellus Forelii of the Swiss Lakes belongs to Cecidotea”’ [31, p. 880]. The statement that one of the rami of the caudal appendages of Asellus is minute is, of course, erroneous, and must have been based on some misunderstanding or erroneous observation. This statement is repeated on p. 19 (evidently copied from above) in Packard’s- larger paper, but is omitted in the fuller account on p. 29, where the differences between Cecidotea and Asellus are given in considerably different terms, and it is stated the Asellus Forelii, Blanc, does not belong to Cecidotea [83, p. 30]. Forbes united Cecidotea with Asellus, as a detailed comparison of C. stygia “with undoubted Asellus, especially with the admirable plates of A. aquaticus in the ‘ Crustacés Weau douce de Norvége,’ has failed to reveal any structural peculiarities which could positively serve as the characters of a distinct genus” [41, p. 11]. In 1886, however, Packard still retained the genus Cecidotea on “taxonomic grounds ” [83, p. 30]. In the paper now under consideration, Packard and Cope write the name of the genus throughout as Cecidotea, though in establishing the genus Packard had originally spelt it Cecidotea; in his larger work again he spells it Cecidotea. Bovallius writes it Cwcidothea [15, p. 13]. Whether these varied spellings are intentional or accidental it would no doubt be better to adhere to the original spelling, as suggested by Stebbing [ 108, p. xx]. In the same paper [31, p. 880] a new species, Crangonyx antennatus, Packard, is described and figured. This species is said to be very different from C. vitreus, Cope, and from C. Packardii, Smith, but to present various resemblances to C. gracilis, Smith, from Lake Superior. Cuas. Curtton [22], in 1881, recorded the occurrence of subterranean Crustacea at Eyreton, North Canterbury, New Zealand. He briefly described and figured three Amphipods, Calliopius subterraneus, Gammarus fragilis, and Crangonyx compactus, and one Isopod, Cruregens fontanus, all the species being new. The genus Cruregens is also new, though apparently somewhat nearly allied to Paranthura. A short notice of this paper by Alois Humbert, appeared in the Arch. Sci. Nat. viii. (Sept. 1882) p. 265. A year later Chilton [23] gave a few additional facts on the occurrence and distribution of these species and also described another Isopod, Phreatoicus typicus, nov. gen. et sp., obtained from the same well at Eyreton. These Crustacea have since been obtained at various localities in the Canterbury Plains, and are fully discussed in the paper below, in which an additional species, Phreatoicus assimilis, sp. nov., is described from Winchester. Another species of the same genus, Phreatoicus australis, was obtained in 1889 in freshwater streams near the top of Mt. Kosciusko in Australia, and has been fully described by Chilton [26]. It of course possesses eyes, while the subterranean species are blind. O. P. Hay [56], in 1882, described a new species of Crangonyx, C. lucifugus, from a wellin Abingdon, Knox county, Illinois. It appears to resemble C. tenuis, Smith, but in the third uropod the two rami are both absent, and the peduncle itself is much reduced. He also describes Crangonyx bifurcus, sp. nov., found in a rivulet at Macon, Mississippi. He says: “The three species, C. gracilis, C. bifurcus, and C. lucifugus, present an interesting gradation in the form of the posterior caudal stylets.” Attention has been directed to this point further on (see p. 218). Prorzssor Vespovsky [113], in his work on the fauna of the wells of Prague, mentions Niphargus puteanus, but does not closely describe it. The species seems to be widely spread at Prague. Vej- dovsky shares de Rougement’s opinion as to the identity of the various species of Well-Shrimps. Gusrav Josrrn [67], in 1882, gives very minutely his observations on the cave-fauna of Carniola, and describes a species, Niphargus orcinus, previously named by him. He mentions the following species as CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 7 77 found in Carniola :—Niphargus stygius, Schiddte ; N. puteanus, de la Valette St. George ; N. puteanus, var. Forelii, A. Humbert ; and N. orcinus, sp. nov. Two species of Titanethes and one of Typhloniscus also appear to have been described by Joseph in this paper. They are Titanethes fracticornis, Joseph, T. brevicornis, Joseph, from Carniola, and Typhlo- niscus stygius, Joseph, from Italy. They are mentioned by Packard in his list of the cave-animals of Europe [83, p. 86]. F. A. Foret [40, p. 134] could not find Niphargus in the Savoy lakes, in Lake Bourget, and Lake Annecy, but Niphargus puteanus, Koch, was found in a well at Annecy. O. E. Imuor [64] also was unable to find Niphargus in these lakes, though in Lake Bourget Asellus Forelii, Blanc, was found. According to Evcrnr Davay [34] Niphargus stygius is found in Transylvania, at Kis-Nyires and Ugra. Ep. van Benxven [10] also records the occurrence of Niphargus puteanus at Liége. F. A. Foret [40], in 1885, published his very exhaustive and comprehensive work on “La Faune profonde des Lacs suisses,” in which many references are made to the blind Niphargus and Asellus. In the fauna of the deep water he mentions Gammarus pulex, Deg. (which appears to descend to considerable depths, although the author says that the forms he has seen differ little from those of the littoral region), Niphargus puteanus, var. Foreliit, Humbert, and Asellus Forelii, Blanc. He is inclined to raise Humbert’s variety of Niphargus to the rank of a species, and mentions that it is nearer to the Niphargus of wells than to the Gammarus pulex of the littoral region of the lake. He afterwards calls it Niphargus Forelii. Asellus Forelii, Blanc, is abundant at various depths ; two specimens found at depths of 200 métres and 300 métres had rudiments of eyes; all the others, even the young from the pouch of the female, showed no trace of eyes. The species is intermediate between Asellus aquaticus and A, cavaticus, Schiddte, but is nearer the latter. The author records Niphargus Forelii from the following lakes :—Geneva, Neuchatel, Lucerne, Walenstadt, Zurich, Como; and Asellus Forelii from Bourget, Annecy, Geneva, Lucerne. After an elaborate argument the author comes to the conclusion that the two species Niphargus Foreliiand Asellus Forelii are not derived from the fauna of the littoral region, but from the underground waters of the surrounding country, which must therefore have more or less free communication with the deep waters of the lakes. G. Buppr-Lunp [18] in his ‘Crustacea Isopoda Terrestria,’ published in 1885, identifies Typhlo- niscus Steinii, Schobl, and Itea crassicornis, Koch, with Platyarthrus Hoffmannseggii, Brandt, a species found in ants’ nests throughout Europe; he also gives another species, P. Schddlii, from Algeria [18, p. 201]. In the appendix [18, p. 306] he gives Typhloniscus stygius, Joseph, under the name Platyarthrus stygius, but does not say where it is found, or whether in ants’ nests or in caverns, Packard, in his list of European cave-animals, gives it as from Italy [83, p. 86]. Under the genus Titanethes Budde-Lund gives a short description of Titanethes albus (= Pherusa alba, Koch), and merely mentions T. alpicola, Heller, T. graniger, Frivaldsky, 7. feneriensis, Parona, T. fracticornis, Joseph, and T. brevi- cornis, Joseph [18, p. 254]. G. pu Pxessis-Gourer [87] deals with the same subject as that handled by Forel. He found Niphargus Forelit opposite Ouchy in the Lake of Geneva, where Forel had not found it, and states that it occurs also in the Lake of Lucerne. He says, without hesitation, that the lake Niphargus is descended from the underground Niphargus. G. Asper [2], in 1885, refers to his former work on this subject, but does not mention the forms supposed to be intermediate between Gammarus pulex and Niphargus Forelii. He is of opinion that the Niphargus gets into the lakes from wells. 178 DR. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN R. Scuneiwer [96], 1855, described from the mines at Clausthal a variety of Gammarus pulex, under the name G. pulex var. subterraneus, which differs from the normal specimens of the species in its loss of colour, the partial degeneration of the eyes, the possession of two joints only in the secondary flagellum of the upper antennz as in Niphargus puteanus, &c. Schneider appears to consider it to some extent intermediate between Gammarus pulex and Niphargus puteanus. In connection with it Stebbing says: ‘The special interest of the form lies in its occurrence in the waters of mines of which the age can be more or less definitely ascertained” [108, p. 573]. It is discussed by Moniez, who has found a somewhat similar form at Emmerin [78, p. 39]. Kart Bovatuivs [15], in 1886, in his ‘Notes on the Family Asellide,’ mentions and gives brief descriptions of Asellus Forelii, Blanc, A. Sieboldii, de Rougemont (=A. cavaticus, Schiddte), and Cecidotea stygia, Packard. He omits Cecidotea nickajackensis, Packard, the account of which he had evidently not seen. In the introduction [15, p. 3] he says :—% Cecidotea seems to be closely con- nected with dAsedlus Forelii and A. cavaticus, but without any knowledge of the form of its pleopoda it is impossible to say whether it ought to be united with Asedlus or not.” R. Scuneiwer [97], in 1887, described a new variety freibergensis, Schn., of Asellus aquaticus, found in the water of the mines of Freiburg. It bears to A. aguaticus much the same relation as Gammarus pulex var, subterraneus, Schn., does to the normal G. pulex. It is smaller, quite colourless, the eyes persistent, but presenting the same example of degradation as in G. pulex var. subterraneus. A. KE. Jurinac [68] found in the caves of Croatia a species which he first named Eriopis croatica and afterwards Niphargus croaticus. According to Moniez, it is characterized by the antennz, which are longer than the body, and contain 73 joints, the last six segments of the pleon are furnished with a thick row of forked spines, the hand is almost square in the female and oval in the male [78, p. 49]. A. S. Packarn’s [83] paper on “ The Cave Fauna of North America” was read in November 1886, but I am unable to find out exactly when it was published. It contains a very full and comprehensive account of the various caves, with the fauna of each, and a discussion on some of the points of general importance presented thereby. ‘The cave Isopoda given are Cecidotea stygia, Packard, and C. nicka- jackensis, Packard. A fuller account than had previously been published is given of the genus Cecidotea, which is retained as distinct from Asedlus “ on taxonomic grounds ” *, and, as it is pointed out, it presents constant differences from the blind Isopods of European caves and wells and from the depths of the Swiss lakes, which, though exposed to similar conditions, have developed in a different direction. The two species C. stygia and C. nickajackensis are described in some detail and compared with the surface species Asellus communis, and the author says: “It seems quite evident that the two species have descended from different species of Asellus. Whether there is an additional species in the Southern States from which the present species [C. nickajackensis| may have been derived remains to be seen” [83, p. 33]. Two species, A. intermedius and A. brevicauda, described by Forbes from Southern Illinois, are mentioned, but it is stated that neither has been found in central or northern Illinois, “although the most varied situations were carefully searched ” [83, p. 33]. The Amphipoda given are Crangonyx vitreus, Smith (= Stygobromus vitreus, Cope), C. Packardii, Smith (=C. vitreus, Packard), C. antennatus, Packard, C. mucronatus, Forbes, and C. lucifugus, Hay. Of the three last mentioned, the original descriptions given by their authors are simply reproduced, the other two are described and figured by Professor S. 1. Smith. Of the first species, C. vitreus, he says :—“ I know of no species with which this is closely enough allied to make its affinities of any value on the question of * Since this was written I have, through the kindness of Mr. W. P. Hay, received specimens of Cecidotwa stygia from wells in Irvington, Indiana , and they differ so much in the proportions of the body and in other points from Asellus communis, of which Mr. Hay has also sent me specimens, that I fully agree with Packard that Cacidotea should rank as a distinct genus separate from Asellus. CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 179 the origin of the cave-fauna” [83, p. 35]. This species does not possess even rudimentary eyes, but in C. Packardii an imperfect eye is present. The latter species is very close to C. gracilis, Smith, and the “differences are all such as very naturally lead to the supposition that this subterranean form has been derived from the C. gracilis at no very remote period” [83, p. 36]. The brain of the eyeless Cecidotea is described and compared with that of Asellus, from which it appears “that the eyeless Cecidotea differs from Asellus, as regards its brain and organs of sight, in the complete loss of the optic ganglion, the optic nerve, and the almost and sometimes quite total loss of the pigment- cells and lenses” [83, p. 109]. Cecidotwa does not appear to be always totally eyeless. In specimens from a well at Normal, Illinois, the eye was represented by a black speck, varying in distinctness ; no trace of eyes could, however, be detected in most of the Mammoth Cave specimens. The brains of eyed and eyeless species of Crangonyx were also examined and compared, and the result thus stated : “we see very slight differences between the brains of the eyed and the eyeless Crangonyx. The optic ganglia have about the same proportions as do the other lobes and the arrangement of the ganglion-cells, Perhaps striking differences should not be expected, as the eyes of the eyed species of Crangonyx are small compared with those of Gammarus.” Numerous references to these cave Crustacea are made in the course of the author’s remarks on the general question of the peculiarities of the cave-fauna, Tuos. R. R. Sressrne [108] in his “ Report on the ‘ Challenger’ Amphipoda,” published in 1888, notices in his biographical introduction previous writings on the blind Amphipoda found in caves, wells, and the deep waters of lakes, with occasional remarks and criticisms of his own, most of which have been already incorporated above. R. Montez [78], in 1889, gave a full account of the fauna of the ‘“ Département du Nord,” and particularly of the town of Lille, and besides giving the Crustacea found in this locality he mentions also those recorded from other places by previous observers. He describes under the name Gammarus fluviatilis, var. d’ Emmerin, a single specimen from the reservoirs of Emmerin, which seems to differ from the Gammari found at the surface in much the same way as the G. pulex, var. suiterraneus, described by Schneider does; but as the last segments of the pleon bear groups of strong spines, it approaches more nearly to G. fluviatilis. Moniez says that it forms in some manner a connecting-link between the surface type and the variety described by Schneider. The number of joints in the flagella of the antenn are rather numerous, the secondary appendage of the upper antenna containing five joints, a point to which Moniez attaches some importance. The importance of this is, however, somewhat lessened when we remember that the single specimen examined was of large size, viz. 22 millim. in length, for the numbers of joints in the flagella of the antennz, and also in the secondary appendage, appear to increase with the size of the animal; thus I have a large specimen of Gammarus fragilis, 14 millim. long, which has the secondary appendage composed of nine joints, whilst in another only 7 millim. long there are only siz joints, and I have seen specimens with even fewer joints than this. Of course, in species where the normal number of joints is very small, the variation will not be so great, but the same reasoning will apply to a modified degree. Moniez does not accept the genus Niphargus, and under the name Gammarus puteanus, Koch, he describes two forms; the first, “ G. puteanus 4 main triangulaire,”’ corresponds to Niphargus aquilez, Spence Bate, and to N. puteanus, var. onesiensis, Humbert, and this is the species which should, he considers, be looked upon as the true type of Niphargus puteanus. The other form, “ Gammarus puteanus & main ovale,” differs in the form of the hand of the gnathopods, and particularly in the last uropoda, which are short and bear only one branch consisting of a single joint, thus resembling Crangonyz, though the telson is double and not simple as in that genus. This form Moniez constantly found associated with Niphargus puteanus (& main triangulaire), but in much fewer numbers; and as he cannot identify it with any of the previously described species and is not inclined to see a new species in it, he suggests that it may be a second form of the male of Niphargus puteanus. SECOND SERIES.—ZOOLOGY, VOL. VI. DA, 180 DR. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN Wrzesniowski, however, makes this form a separate species under the provisional name Niphargus Moniezi, considering it a connecting-form between Niphargus and Crangonyx [124, p. 672]. Moniez did not find Asellus cavaticus along with Niphargus puteanus at Lille, although these two species are frequently found associated. He accounts for this by suggesting that owing to the habits of the animal it is not so likely to be drawn up the pumps as the Amphipods are. He gives, however, brief notices of the various Isopods found by other authors in wells, caves, &c., as he has already done a few pages previously for the Amphipods found in similar situations. Aveust Wrzesniowskr [123], in 1888, published an elaborate paper in the Polish language under the title “De tribus Crustaceis Amphipodis subterraneis.’’ In 1890 there appeared a translation, apparently with some additions and alterations, in German [124]. This exceedingly careful and con- scientious work will be quite indispensable to all future students of the subterranean Crustacea, and it will therefore be sufficient to indicate here briefly the contents of the paper. Some of the more general questions raised are considered elsewhere. The paper commences with a full historical sketch of the subject, which I have freely made use of in drawing up the present account. Wrzesniowski, however, deals only with the Amphipoda. Then follows a discussion on the genera Gammarus, Niphargus, Eriopis, Crangonyx, Goplana, and Boruta, the genus Hriopis, Bruzelius, being retained under the altered form Hriopsis, and a new genus Boruta being established apparently nearly related to Goplana, WrzeSsniowski, but differing in some details of the mouth-parts. The three new Amphipods described are Niphargus tatrensis, sp. nov., Niphargus puteanus, var. Vejdovskyi, var. noy., and Boruta tenebrarum, noy. gen. et sp. These species are described at great length and compared with previously described species, the mouth-parts in particular receiving special attention and being figured with great care. There is a discussion on the multiplicity of species of Niphargus, with an elaborate criticism of the views of de Rougemont, an account of the geographical distribution of the subterranean Gammarids and of their probable origin, a bibliographical list of works relating to the subject, and tables of measurements of the different species. I regret exceedingly that my imperfect knowledge of German has prevented me from making as full use of this paper as I should like to have done. III. Tur History, Distrrpution, AND OCCURRENCE OF THE NEw ZEALAND SUBTERRANEAN CRUSTACEA. The oceurrence of blind Crustacea in the underground waters of Canterbury, New Zealand, was first recorded by me in a paper read before the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, on the 3rd November, 1881 [22]. This paper contained descriptions illustrated with figures of four new species,—one Isopod, Cruregens fontanus, and three Amphipods, Crangonyx compactus, Calliope subterranea, and Gammarus fragilis,—and was subsequently published in the ‘ Transactions of the New Zealand Institute.’ In 1882, in a second paper read before the same Institute on the 5th October [23], I made a few additions and corrections to the first paper, giving a few facts as to the occurrence of the different species, and also described another Isopod, Phreatoicus typicus, a new species and genus for which I have since made a separate family, the Phreatoicidee [26, p. 151]. The five species mentioned above had all been obtained from a well at East Eyreton, about 13 or 14 miles from Christchurch, and most of them were subsequently obtained from other wells in the immediate neighbourhood. Nothing further of importance CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 181 regarding these Crustacea was ascertained until towards the end of 1883, when Mr. D. L. Inwood, of Winchester, near Temuka, South Canterbury, wrote to me stating that he had taken similar blind Crustacea from a pump at Winchester. He afterwards very kindly forwarded me some specimens, which proved to belong to Gammarus fragilis, Calliope subterranea, Cruregens fontanus, and to a species of Phreatoicus. A short note recording the occurrence of these species at Winchester was published in the ‘ New Zealand Journal of Science’ for March, 1884 [24], in which also the generic name Calliope was altered to Calliopius, as the former name was preoccupied, and it was pointed out that the specimens referred to Phreatoicus typicus differed to some extent from the Eyreton specimens, though whether they were entitled to rank as a new variety or not was at the time left an open question; in the present paper they have been placed under the new species Phreatoicus assimilis. In 1889, Mr. G. M. Thomson [110, p. 262], recorded the existence of Calliopius sub- terraneus in wells at Ashburton from specimens forwarded to him by Mr. W. W. Smith. I have since received numerous specimens of this species from various wells in that locality, both from Mr. Smith, and also from Mr. J. B. Mayne, Head Master of the Ashburton Public School. In 1891, Mr. R. M. Laing, of the Christchurch Boys’ High School, sent me several specimens of Gammarus fragilis from wells at Leeston, about 27 miles from Christ- church in a southerly direction. He has since sent me specimens of Crangonyx com- pactus and Cruregens fontanus also from the same well. In the year 1892 Mr. E. Wilkinson, of the School of Agriculture, Lincoln, sent me a large number of specimens of Calliopius subterraneus from wells at that place, about 12 miles from Christchurch. These are all the localities from which I have seen specimens of these Crustacea up to the present time, though from various correspondents I learn that they have been seen in other localities on the Canterbury Plains. Mr. Smith wrote me (Aug. 1892) that he had heard of them from as far north as Leithfield, and also from Alford Forest, only a few miles from the base of the ranges, in a well 46 feet deep. About the end of 1889 I received from the Trustees of the Australian Museum, Sydney, a small collection of terrestrial and freshwater Crustacea, collected for the Museum by Mr. R. Helms, while on an expedition to the Mt. Kosciusko plateau, Among these I at once saw that there was one belonging to the genus Phreatoicus, which had been established for the blind form from the wells at Eyreton. ‘The occurrence of a species of this genus inhabiting the surface-waters on the top of the Mt. Kosciusko plateau, at a height of nearly 6000 feet above sea-level, was first published in the small ‘Handbook of Christchurch,’ prepared for the Meeting of the Australian Association for the Advancement of Science, at Christchurch, in January 1891 (63, p. 19]. ‘The species was afterwards fully described in the ‘ Records of the Australian Museum’ under the name Phreatoicus australis [26]. In the present paper I have compared it with the two subterranean species LP. ¢ypicus and LP. assimilis. Subterranean Crustacea have now been actually obtained from the following localities in the Canterbury Plains :— 24% 182 DR. C, CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN 1. East Eyreton, about 15 miles north of Christchurch, altitude about 120 feet above sea-level *. 2. Lincoln, about 12 miles south of Christchurch, altitude about 28 feet above sea- level. 3. Leeston, about 27 miles south of Christchurch, altitude about 60 feet above sea- level. 4. Ashburton, about 50 miles south-west of Christchurch, altitude about 323 feet above sea-level. 5. Winchester, about 85 miles south-west of Christchurch, altitude about 136 feet above sea-level. IT have also heard of Crustacea being seen from wells at several other localities in addition to those given above; but leaving these out of consideration, the localities given, from all of which I have actual specimens, are sufficient to show that these Crustacea are widely distributed in Canterbury, so far as distance north and south is concerned ; the distribution from east to west, so far as at present known, appears to be much more restricted, and it is perhaps worthy of notice that all the places mentioned are within short distances of the sea, none of them being more than 10 or 12 miles from it. No doubt further research will demonstrate the occurrence of these Crustacea at many other places; at the same time it is to be remarked that they do not occur in the artesian waters of Christchurch. The area in which artesian wells can be sunk with success is a narrow belt parallel to the sea, extending from Flaxton, north of the Waima- kariri, to Lake Ellesmere, the inland boundary being the contour of about 50 feet above the sea. The depth below the surface of the first water-bearing stratum varies from about 55 feet at Riccarton to 136 at New Brighton, on the sea-coast, and there is a second water-bearing stratum at about double the depth of the first in each locality. Crustacea appear to be absent from both of these water-bearing strata; I have frequently sought for them in vain in water from wells to the first stratum, and others have been equally unsuccessful] ; moreover, as the water of these wells is used throughout the whole district for drinking-purposes without previous filtering, the animals would certainly have been noticed had they been present. With regard to the wells reaching to the second stratum, Mr. R. M. Laing tells me that he endeavoured to collect Crus- tacea from a well of this kind at the Christchurch Boys’ High School, Bath, by fixing a muslin bag over the mouth of the pipe for some hours, but that no trace of any Crustacea was obtained. Of course, this evidence, though very satisfactory so far as it goes, is by no means conclusive, and it would be well to repeat the experiment in other wells and at different times, in order to confirm or disprove the results of the single trial already made. In the above-mentioned ‘ Handbook of Christchurch’ [63, p. 33] it is pointed out that although it is commonly thought that the main source of the water-supply of the artesian wells is the leakage of the bed of the Waimakariri, the few careful observations that have * This height has been obtained from the Survey Department through the kindness of Mr. C. W. Adams, Chief Surveyor, Dunedin. The other heights are taken from the figures given in the time-tables published by the New Zealand Railway Commissioners. CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 183 been made do not confirm this hypothesis at all, as floods in the river never affect the height of the water in the wells, while heavy rain makes them rise, and a continuance of dry weather makes them fall. The absence of subterranean Crustacea appears to confirm the opinion that the water of the artesian wells is not derived from the leakage of the Waimakariri, for the water in which they are found at Eyreton is almost certainly derived, partly at any rate, from the Waimakariri, and if they exist there we might reasonably expect to find them distributed all over the water affected by leakage from that river. All the subterranean Crustacea hitherto collected from the underground waters of the Canterbury Plains have been obtained by means of the ordinary suction-pumps with which the wells are usually fitted. In the same way similar Crustacea have been obtained in England by Spence Bate and others, in France by Moniez, in various parts of Europe by numerous observers, and in North America by Hay, Forbes, and others. In Europe and North America these Crustacea have also been procured from underground streams in caves and from the deep waters of lakes, but none have as yet been obtained in this way in New Zealand. These situations have not yet been properly searched, and it is quite possible that the blind Crustacea may yet be obtained by exploring the caves in different parts of the colony, and by dredging in the deep alpine lakes of Otago. The pumps referred to are mostly ordinary suction-pumps, and consequently do not go down to a depth of much more than 80 feet. In some cases, however, owing to a con- tinuance of dry weather for several years, the pipes have had to be driven deeper, and fitted with a cylinder-pump, and Crustacea have still been occasionally taken from them ; but it would be obviously rather more difficult to bring up Crustacea from greater depths in this way than from less depths by an ordinary suction-pump, even although they were equally numerous in the waters underground in the two cases. In some cases there is an actual well, the soil having been excavated to a depth of 25 feet or so, and a hole thus formed in which the water can accumulate; in the majority of cases, however, the suction-pipe has been simply driven into the ground like that of an ordinary artesian well. The Crustacea are obtained quite as freely from wells of the one description as of the other. Ihave myself noticed that the Crustacea are often brought up most abundantly when pumping is first commenced, and that jerking the handle of the pump somewhat violently is often more successful than pumping at the ordinary rate. Mr. J. B. Mayne has noticed the same thing in connection with pumps at Ashburton, and Mr. E. Wilkinson, of Lincoln, states that the Crustacea come up most abundantly after the pump has been left for a time, especially in the early morning. Of course, these facts can be easily accounted for if we consider the character of the small animals with which we have to deal, for a sudden upward. flow of the water would be more likely to carry them with it than a more gradual flow, and they would be more likely to be found in the neighbourhood of the pipe, or indeed in the pipe itself, when the waters had been for some time undisturbed by pumping. In order to collect them I have generally taken a small hand-bowl, pumped it full by a few vigorous or jerking motions of the handle, then examined it to see if any Crustacea 184 DR. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN have been brought up, catching any that there may be with a dipping-tube, and pumping the bow] full again after the lapse of a few minutes ; and where the Crustacea have been fairly numerous I have found this intermittent method of pumping more successfu) than continuous pumping. In other wells where the Crustacea were found only sparingly, Mr. Smith of Ashburton found it better to collect them by tying a muslin net over the spout of the pump; and in order to prevent the animals being injured he floats the net in a bucketful of water, the bucket being raised so that the level of the water in it is higher than the spout of the pump. Mr. Smith reports from Ashburton that all the subterranean animals appear to have been brought up by the pumps most abundantly some eighteen months or two years ago, when, owing to the continued drought, the water in the wells was sinking; but that since the wells were sunk deeper, and up to the present time when the water is now rising again in most wells, the animals have been much rarer. Thus in one of his letters he says :—‘‘ I generally enquire wherever I go if any animals come up in the water, the answer being that there were plenty twelve months ago but none lately.” In another he says that one gentleman informs him “ that they frequently saw minute ‘ pale shells with white slugs in them’ before the pump went dry eighteen months ago; since sinking the pump 15 feet more, they have not detected any animals in the water.” In another letter, dated 29th June, 1892, Mr. Smith says Mr. Dolman, a practical well-sinker of the district, informed him “that he had not seen a single animal in well-water for some months. There is, however, not much well-sinking going on, as the water is almost up to its usual height.” My own experience tends to strengthen the conclusion that the animals are brought up most abundantly while the level of the water is sinking, for I found them very abundant at Eyreton from 1881 up to about 1886, during the whole of which time the water was sinking, and the wells had to be deepened several times. I have had few opportunities of collecting at Eyreton since, but I am told that very few animals have been seen during the last two or three years. In 1891 Mr. R. M. Laing sent me quite a number of sub- terranean Crustacea from one of the wells at Leeston, and he states in a later letter that the well has since become dry. From the one well at Eyreron in which I first noticed the Crustacea I have collected the following five species :—Gammarus fragilis, Crangonyx compactus, Calliopius sub- terraneus, Cruregens fontanus, and Phreatoicus typicus. Of these Calliopius subterraneus, the female, has always been much more abundant than any of the others; for two or three years from 1881 I seldom had to pump for more than 10 or 15 minutes without obtaining some specimens of this species. After the well was deepened it was less abundant, and did not preponderate over the others so much as before. The male of this species is very rare; I have seen only about half a dozen specimens altogether. Whether this species is really so much more abundant than the others in the underground waters is, perhaps, a little doubtful, as from its smaller size it would naturally be drawn up the pipe more easily than the larger forms. Of the other species, Gammarus fragilis and Crangonyx compactus have been about equally abundant on the whole, but sometimes one form has preponderated and sometimes the other ; Cruregens fontanus, though somewhat numerous, \ CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 185 has not been so commonly obtained as the others ; this may perhaps be accounted for by its habit of creeping instead of swimming like the Amphipods. Moniez notes the same thing with regard to Asellus cavaticus, Schiddte, which is frequently found along with Gammarus puteanus, but has not been met with from the district of Lille nor from Prague, although the latter species is found at both places; he accounts for this by stating that, owing to the habits of the animal, it would rarely be brought up by the pumps [78, p. 51]. The occurrence of Phreatoicus typicus has been somewhat peculiar. Although the Crustacea coming up the pump were pretty carefully watched and collected from January 1881, no specimen of Phreatoicus was observed until the beginning of September 1882, while in a month from that date some six or seven other specimens, all females, were obtained. I have not taken it again since then; but in the year 1892 a single specimen, also a female, was taken at Ashburton by Mr. Smith. This species is represented at Winchester by a closely allied species, described in this paper as Phreatoicus assimilis, and of this I have three specimens only, two males and one female. From Lerston the following species are so far known—Gammarus fragilis, Crangonyx compactus, and Cruregens fontanus ; from Lincoin, Calliopius subterraneus ; from Asu- BURTON, Calliopius subterraneus, Gammarus fragilis, Cruregens fontanus, and Phreatoicus typicus ; from WINCHESTER, Calliopius subterraneus, Gammarus fragilis, Cruregens fon- tanus, and the representative species Phreatoicus assimilis. TV. DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF THE NEw ZEALAND SUBTERRANEAN CRUSTACEA. ISOPODA. Family PHREATOICID. Genus PHrearorcus, Chilton, (Transactions New Zealand Institute, vol. xv. p. 89.) The following are the characters that I originally assigned to this genus in 1882, when I had only one species, Phreatoicus typicus, before me. They apply, with the slight limitations given below, to the three species of the genus now known, and may therefore still stand in the form in which they were originally put :— “ Body long, subcylindrical, laterally compressed. Upper antenna short, lower long, with flagellum. Mandible with an appendage. First pair of legs subchelate, others simple ; first fowr pairs articulated to body at the anterior ends of their segments and directed forward ; last three articulated at posterior ends of their segments and directed backward. Abdomen long, of six distinct segments, last joined to telson. Sixth pair of pleopoda biramous, styliform. Telson large, subconical.”’ On this description I may make the following remarks :— 1. The lateral compression of the body is not great and is seen chiefly in the pleon, where the pleura of the segments are produced downward. 2. With regard to the legs, the first pair is subchelate in both sexes, but is Jarger in the male than in the female, and the fourth pair in the male is slightly modified so as to 186 DR. C. CHILTON ON THE SUBTERRANEAN be almost subchelate; in the female the fourth pair is simple like the preceding. The statement that the first four are attached to the body at the anterior ends of their seg- ments and the last three at the posterior ends, although true enough of the typical species, required some modification in the case of P. australis, for the last three pairs in this species are attached to the centres of their segments, the epimera occupying almost all the inferior margins, and this is also true in a modified degree of the other species. The point that I wished to bring out would be better expressed by saying that the legs are divided into an anterior series of four and a posterior series of three, and this would apply equally well to the three species. 3. “ Abdomen long” should perhaps read “ pleon long ”’ in order to be consistent with the term “ pleopoda” used afterwards. The term “ uropoda” is again a very convenient one to use in place of “ sixth pair of pleopoda.” 4. The peculiarities of the pleopoda, as shown in the descriptions given below, are, no doubt, quite worthy of being mentioned among the characters of the genus, but they cannot be observed without dissection, and so long as the genus can be sufficiently dis- tinguished by other points more easily observed, there is no necessity to introduce them. Perhaps some of them, such as the possession of an “ epipodite,” will prove to be characters of the family and not merely of the genus. PHREATOICUS ASSIMILIS, sp. nov. (Plates XVI. & XVII.) Phreatoicus typicus, Chilton, New Zealand Journal of Science, ii. p. 89 (March 1884). Phreatoicus typicus (pars), Thomson and Chilton, Transactions New Zealand Institute, vol. xvii. p. 151. Specific diagnosis. Body somewhat stout. Pleura of the second, third, fourth, and fifth segments of the pleon very largely developed, much deeper than their respective segments; the inferior margins somewhat sparsely fringed with small spinules. The projection at the extremity of the telson not much produced, broader than long; upper angle of its extremity sharp and tipped with a few sete ; lower angle rounded. Lower antennee about half as long as the body; peduncle with the fifth joint only about half as long again as the fourth; flagellum much longer than the peduncle. Legs stoutish, with the joints somewhat expanded, all the pairs well supplied with setee. Lower lip with each half ovate, with the extremity well rounded. Inner lobe of the first maxilla rather narrow and with only four plumose setz at its extremity. Colour. Translucent. Length. About half an inch (10 to 12 mm.). Habitat. Winchester, South Canterbury, in wells (D. LZ. Inwood). Detailed Description. The following detailed description is mainly taken from a male specimen that was dissected for the purpose. A few points regarding the surface of the body &c. have been taken from a female specimen that was mounted dry on a slide. Body (P\. XVI. fig. 1). The female specimen has the body 10°5 mm. long, and the perzeon about 1°5 mm. deep. he body is of uniform breadth throughout its whole length. In CRUSTACEA OF NEW ZEALAND. 187 the perzeon the depth is about equal to the breadth, the ventral surface being more or less flat, so that here the body is semi-cylindrical ; in the pleon the segments (except the first and sixth) have the pleura much produced below into smooth, flat, thin plates protecting the pleopoda on either side. The surface of the body is smooth throughout, with a few setze scattered here and there either singly or in small tufts, chiefly on the dorsal surface. Head (Pl. XVI. fig. 1). The dorsal surface is convex, curving downward in front, making the outline of the head in lateral view roughly subtriangular. The anterior margin, as seen from above, is concave behind the bases of the antennze.