64 



ANNELIDS. I. 



waters ("Aarlius Bugt" and "Sejero Bngt") on the authority of Levinsen; consequently I have re-examined 

 the specimens in question, but they are not typical; the cause of his wrong determination is perhaps 

 a confusion of the two species Eteone longa and E. arctica. 



Augener writes in his paper: "Polychaeten von Franz-Josephs Land I," Zool. Anz. XLJ, p. 216 

 "In Gronland mag Et. arctica durch die sehr uahestehende Et. longa vertreten werden, falls beide 

 Arten iiberhaupt vershieden sind, da Ditlevseu z. B. (Annelids from the Danmark Exped. 191 1, p. 418) 

 nicht Et. longa, aber Et. arctica aus Gronland anfuhrt." I must confess that I am not able to 

 understand perfectly the meaning of this remark. As to the two species Eteone longa and Eteone 

 arctica my opinion is that they are closely related, perhaps only varieties of the same species, an 

 apprehension probably also concurred in by Augener. I have separated them specifically on ac- 

 count of several structural differences between them, a fact also stated by Mc. Intosh, who writes 

 that E. arctica "differs from E. longa in the shape of the dorsal cirrus and other points." Like Mc. 

 Intosh I have also found difference in the shape of the dorsal lamellae in the two species in question; 

 in E. longa they are small, narrow and papilliform, in E. arctica they are broader, flattened and almost 

 ovoid. The figures of Malmgren 1. c. Taf. II, fig. 12 c and 12 c' give this plainly. As to the besetting of 

 papillae on the proboscis I have not been able to state any essential diversity in the two species. E. 

 arctica often protrudes the proboscis entirely under the preservation, E. longa does not protrude the prob- 

 oscis at all or, in some cases, protrudes it halfway. In fig. 13, PI. V, I have figured the cephalic end of 

 a well preserved specimen of E. longa from Bredefjord in South Greenland. The proboscis of this 

 specimen is only protruded half-way, and it is impossible without section to state the number of terminal 

 papillae, just as it is impossible to state the exact shape of the proboscis. Only one thing is plain, the 

 surface is smooth and the papillae spread over the dorsal surface of the proboscis of Eteone arctica, 

 figured by Malmgren, are entirely lacking. 



The result of my examination of the material present of the two species, E. longa and E. arctica 

 is the following: The two species are closely related; the only invariable difference stated is the shape 

 of the dorsal lamellae; probably there are some difference, in the besetting with papillae of the prob- 

 oscis; they appear to be entirely lacking on the dorsal surface of the proboscis of E. longa. Further the 

 geografical range of the two forms is different, the £. longa being exclusively Arctic, while the E. 

 arctica, also found in the Arctic, goes further southwards, viz. to British and Danish coasts. 



Eteone depressa Mgrn. 



PI. V, figs. 1, 5, 6, 7, S. 

 1865. Eteone depressa, Malmgren: Nord. Hafs-Ann. p. 103. 

 1913. — partial, Augener: Polych. Franz-Josephs Land, p. 215. 



Locality : 



The Ingolf-Expedition has taken this species on St. 138, 63°26' N. L. f^' W. L., 471 fms. North 

 of the Faroe Islands. 



Further it has been captured: 

 Iceland, Bakkefjord, 12 — 15 fms. Black sand. 

 — , Lonsvig, c. 40 fms. Clay and mud. 



