of Annelids, however, forms which in the north frequent the offshore are found between
tide-marks in the south. The number of the branchiaa differs slightly in the two forms,
Sars giving five as the usual number. Further inquiry is thus necessary before the
absolute identity can be satisfactorily ascertained.
ISub-family—E uphjrosynina.
Cephalic lobe compressed, bending downwards anteriorly to the ventral surface.
Dorsally a median tentacle, two eyes, and a trilobed caruncle, ventrally two eyes, two
short lateral tentacles, and a pair of adnate palpi in front of the mouth.
Body oblong or ovate-oblong, segments few, feet crest-like, the dorsal and ventral
divisions being indistinct. Bristles of the dorsal region brittle and hollow, with, simple
or bifid tips or hooks with jointed stems, accompanied by simple bristles. Branchiae on
almost all the segments. Buccal apparatus large and complex; alimentary canal simple,
with only a trace of an anterior cæcum. Aniih dorsal. Two posterior appendages. The
nerve-cords are separate and comparatively large, and lie quite within the body-wall,—
the oblique muscles, which generally bound the longitudinal ventral muscles, in this
case decussating beneath them.
When Savigny established the genus Euphrosyne in 1820, he placed it, as his
nineteenth genus, under his fourth family, the Amphmomæ of Bruguière-; and several
subsequent authors, such as Milne Edwards, Kinberg, Ehlers, and De Quatrefages, have
adopted the same arrangement.
Kinberg (1857) made the Euphrosynea the second family of his second group, Amphi-
nomea. A single genus and species only are mentioned. .His description is—cephalic
lobe compressed ; neither antennæ nor palpi ; branchiæ on many segments ; feet crestlike
and transverse. He subsequently (1867) made three groups of the Amphinomea, viz.
the Chloeia group, the Notopygos group, and the Amphinome group, and gave a brief
résumé of the literature of each. He does not, in this paper, mention Euphrosyne. or
Spinther.
Grube included the genus Euphrosyne under the family Amphinomidae both in his
earlier and later publications (1851—1878), having followed Savigny and the preceding
authors in this respect. I t is placed under- his primary division (tribe) Rapacia.
Ehlers1 likewise adopted Sàvigny’s classification, placing all those with the dorsal
carunele under this group (Amphinomea). He* gives an account of a fossil form
(Meringosoma curtum) from the lithographic slate of Solenhofen which approaches
Euphrosyne in character.' In his recent publication (‘Florida Anneliden,’ 1887) he
adheres to this arrangement. Amongst. other features he noticed the hollow nature of
the bristles.
The Euphrosynidæ in the classification of De Quatrefages3 were grouped under the
1 ‘ Borstenwürmer/ 1864.
3 * Cassel/ 1869, p. 161, pi. xxxvi, f. 3.
3 * Anneles,’ 1865.
Amphinomiens, and separated from the Aphroditidse by the Palmyrid«®, Eunicidm and
Lumbrinereidae. The Amphinomidas he characterised by the similar or subsimilar segments,
by the absence of buccal armature or its simple nature, and by the presence of
arborescent branchiae on the segments. The separation of the Euphrosynidae and their
allies from the proximity of the Aphroditidae does not seem to be warranted on anatomical
grounds.
Claus in his ‘ Grundzuge ’ (1880) placed the Euphrosyninaa as a sub-family of the
Amphinomidae.
Carus1 makes Euphrosine one of the genera. of his Amphinomea, and describes it as
having the head with one or several antennae, two eyes, and a caruncle; body ovatte;
feet biramous, rami confluent; branchiae springing from numerous trunks more or less
branched.
In Benham’s® (1896) classification they form part of his eighth family Amphinomidae,
placed between the Nephthydidae and Eunicidae, a position which, as already indicated,
cannot be supported on anatomical or other grounds of value.
Genus—Spinthek, Johnston, 1845.
O n iscosoma, M. Sars, 1 8 5 0 .
C ryptonota, Stimpson, 1 8 5 4 .
Body ovoid ; dorsum more or less convex; segments few. Cephalic region incised
as in the other segments, and bearing dorsal bristles, lamellae and uncinate setae. Eyes
four, at the base of the dorsal tentacle. BuCcal aperture inferior—set in the midst of the
neighbouring segments. Proboscis exsertile, short and semi-tubular. Intestine pinnate.
Anus posterior. Nerve-cords widely separated. Segmental organs absent. Neither
cirri nor branchiae.
Since few opportunities have occurred in this country of seeing living examples of
the genus, it will most conduce to brevity and clearness if the recent work of von Graff
be summarised.
Polychaeta with elliptical and dorsally convex bodies gently rounded anteriorly and
posteriorly, and having distinctly marked segments. The flanks have a series of short
parapodia with a dorsal lamella in each segment. In the centre anteriorly is a single
tentacle, while posteriorly two wart-like anal cirri occur. At the base of the dorsal
tentacle are four small eyes. On the ventral surface a little behind the snout is the
mouth. Posteriorly is the anus, with the reproductive aperture in front. The free dorsal
lamellae have a double row of chitinous bristles with simple or bifid tips. The parapodia
have a prominent hooked and jointed bristle, and from one to four of the same kind
undergoing development, besides from eight to. thirteen simple bristles. The brain lies
under the dorsal tentacle. The sincipital region of Racovitza is the only part of the head
remaining, and consequently the middle region of the brain is alone present—rboth the
1 Op. cit., ‘Prod. F. Medit.’
. * • - ■ 1 2 ‘ Camb. Nat. Hist.,’ p. 318;