84 LEODICID.E OF THE WEST INDIAN REGION. 



(1861, p. 119, plate xxxn, figure 254) defined the genus Nematonereis and described 

 under it (as N. unicornis) a species with articulated tentacles. Quatrefages (1865a, 

 p. 373) changed Grube's species to Nematonereis grubei, though evidently unicornis has 

 precedence for this species. Mclntosh makes his species synonymous with both of the 

 above species, as well as with N. oculata (Ehlers, 1868, p. 374, plate xvi, figures 19-22), 

 although this latter species has 4 eyes. Even assuming that the number of eyes varies 

 with the age of the individual, I find it difficult to agree with Mclntosh's synonymy. 

 Nematonereis hebes agrees fairly well with Mclntosh's description of N. unicornis Grube, 

 but his were much larger and the general appearance of the body was quite different. 

 His figures of the jaw apparatus were taken from mutilated specimens and are confess- 

 edly inaccurate, but his description would make them much like N. hebes. There are 

 also differences in the form of the setae and I could find no trace of a glandular swelling 

 at the base of the dorsal cirrus on posterior somites, which he mentions as a distinguish- 

 ing feature. The jaws of Ehlers's oculata might have been drawn from hebes, but in 

 this animal the tentacle is much longer and the general form of the body is different, 

 aside from the four-eyed condition mentioned above. The size differences between 

 hebes and the other species might be due to age, but since Yen-ill's specimens and mine 

 agree very closely in size and no larger ones have been found in Bermuda it seems as if 

 no such explanation would hold. 



Verrill gives no locality except "Bermuda" for his material. He records that three 

 specimens were found, but I saw only one in his collection. From the fact that that one 

 was a little smaller than the measurements he gave, I infer that it was not the type. 



