-,8 ANNELIDS. I. 



The specimen taken by the Ingolf-Expedition is in tolerably good condition. It has a length 

 of c. 5cr.n1.; the greatest width, raesured from the apex of one parapodinm to that of another is 18 mm. 

 The width of the body, save the parapods, gives only 5 mm. 



As in all hitherto taken specimens all the scales are lost. It is possible that the hindmost 

 part of the animal has regenerated; the segments are here very small, and the limits between them 

 are effaced ; therefore it is difficult to state the number of segments for the entire animal tolerably 

 exactly; surely it must be between 50 and 60. 



The arrangement of the scales in the specimen from the Ingolf-Expedition is just as indicated 

 by Augener, consequently 2, 4, 5, 7 & c. until the segment 23, hereafter two are passed over so that 

 we get 23, 26, 29 & c. a fact which also agrees with the indication of Ehlers for the specimen taken 

 by the Valdivia-Expedition. 



On the cephalic lobe both of the paired antennae are present, the unpaired is lacking; one of the 

 leaf-shaped appendices at the base of the former is present; it is much like that figured by Ehlers 

 (Valdivia-Exped. T. II, fig. n), is perhaps a little more lengthened. The edge is on both sides somewhat 

 involute, as if it could have enclosed the corresponding unpaired antenna. That this appendix should 

 be, as suggested by Augener, a relaxed flap of the skin nothing seems to argue; nor does it seem 

 reasonable to make it homologous with the "Frontalhoeker" usually found in the cephalic lobe of the 

 Polynoids as indicated by Ehlers; it is the sort of theory that can neither be proved nor disproved 

 until material better fitted for examination is present. 



The palps are big, and taper gradually towards the apex, and the longitudinal elevated list on their 

 dorsal side, indicated on the figure by Ehlers of the specimen from the Valdivia-Expedition, seems to 

 be more prominent in the individual taken by the Ingolf, where it can be followed from the basis of 

 the palp towards the apex. Such an elevated list or fold on the dorsal side is, for the rest, not uncom- 

 mon among the polynoids; we know it from Harmothoc mollis, H. floccosa, //. sctosissima and others. 

 The wall situated between the palps is also present in the specimen from the Ingolf-Expedition, but 

 is, however, not so prominent as described and figured by Ehlers, probably on account of the fact 

 that the proboscis in the Ingolf-specimen is almost completely retracted. 



Behind the cephalic lobe a low projection is seen, lowest in the middle, while the side-parts 

 are more prominent; this formation I suppose to be a nuchal flab, homologous with the well known 

 flab in Alentia gelatinosa. Augener writes 1. c. p. 124: "Erne entfernte Ahnlickkeit der Admetella mit 

 Alentia gelatinosa spricht sich in der Gestaltung der an den Kopflappeu antossendeu Riickenpartie 

 aus, welche ungefahr eiu Aussehen hat, wie es Alentia zeigen wiirde, wenu man sich deren blattfor- 

 migen Nuchallappen entfernt denkt." I can agree with Augener in his opinion about the "entfernte 

 Ahnlichkeit" between Admetella and Alentia, but I do not understand his meaning about the nuchal 

 flab: He writes about the "blattformigen Nuchallappen" in Alentia, but Alentia has only one flab, 

 and A. has not seen the nuchal projection in Admetella, which in my opinion is the only base for a 

 comparison between the two forms in this respect. Ehlers also mentions this nuchal projection; he 

 writes: "Auf der Ruekenflache ist, clem Anscheine nach, eiu breiter Nackenhocker vorhanden." 



The feet agree well with the figures of Ehlers. The "oft blaseuartig durchscheidende Firste" 

 on the dorsal side of the foot, as Ehlers mentions, is very prominent, and, I can add, just as prominent 



