ON A NEW SPECIES OF SCLEROCHEILUS. 303 



Dr J. PERCY MOORE I have been able ti> examine the co-type of the latter species. 

 The specimen is not in good condition. and I cannot add much t<i the account which 

 Dr MOORE * lias given of the species, lint my examination of the specimen leads me 

 to the conclusion that it should not lie placed in the genus Sc/i'i-ix-lif/'/n*. Dr MOOUK'S 

 specimen differs from N<7ov><7/<'/7"x in the following character: (l) the absence of 

 Stronger chsetse in the first notopodium ; (l!) the alisence of neuropodial cirri; (">) 

 the segments are not four-ringed lint three-ringed. It is, of course, possible 

 that neuropodial cirri were originally proent and liave lieen lost, liut had they 

 been destroyed there would, I think, have lieen more evidence of damage to the 

 parapodia. Further, Dr .Moo UK states that in the larger and better-preserved type- 

 specimen there are no neuropodial cirri, and it may therefore lie concluded that 

 these organs were not present in life. Dr MOOKF.'S species seems to be much more 

 nearly related to the v,enus Oncoscolex than to Sclerocheilus, lor it agrees with 

 the former genus in : (l) the segments from the 5th to about the 30th are tri- 

 annulate, those further back (as far as about the 50th t) are bi-annulate : (L!) 

 the absence of parapodial cirri; and (3) the absence of stronger chsetee in the tir>t 

 notopodium. So far as I can see, N. /^r//?r//.s differs from Oncoscolex dicranochaetus 

 only in the shape of the eyes,t a difference which is probably of little account. 

 Until I have had the opportunity of examining the better-preserved type-specimen. 

 I am not prepared to give a final opinion on the systematic position of 8. //<* //ms. 

 but the information at present available indicates that the species should not be 

 referred to the genus Sclerocheilus, and I believe it will prove to belong to the 

 genus Oncoscolex. 



SOLEEOCHEILUS CJECUS SAINT-JOSEPH. 



SAINT- JOSEPH recorded the capture of examples of N. csecus, but this species 

 never described, the onlv information given about it being contained in the si 

 phrase, " Sfli'>-ni-li<'!liis C.VC/'N, ditferaiit seiisiblemeut du Sclerocheilus minutus (!r. 

 N. r,rr//.v is therefore a nomen //"'/"///, but there can be little doubt that the 

 specimen- referred to were those snl)M'ijueiitlv described by SAINT-JOSEPH under the 

 name Lipobranchius inter 



( IUSKUVATIOXS ox A STKCIMKX OK L ' A'r.i/A'.v/.i OGULATA." 



The worm recorded by Dr ('if. ( JI;AVIK.I: *' as En-menia or"/"/" Mhlers appeared to 

 me to be closely related to the Scotia Hay specimen. Dr < ii:.\viK.n has kindly lent 



* I'm: Aanl. Xat. Set. liu'/'i,Ulj,lt;<i, 1909, p. iJsj. 

 t The specimen has 62 cluutiferous segments. 



I Which are approximately round or oval m 0. dicranochsetus, m-i inv^iil ,rh triangular in 5. poe(/?cu. 

 C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, tnim- ci (1885), p. 1511. 

 || See above, p. ln!i. 

 IT Deuxieme iVy.W. .\ntnrct. f'nnir. : Am^'lnl. s I'uiijdi.l'S, lllll, p. 111'. 



(ROY. SOC. EDIN. TKANS., VOI. I., II . I 



