162 



Transactions. 



central four are similar to one another ; the rectangular base of each is 

 produced into a sharp narrow conical tooth ; the lateral tooth on either 

 side has a longer base, which is produced outwards towards the bay formed 

 by the reflexed end of the chitinous band. 



In one individual (preserved in formalin) the pharyngeal tube is widely 

 open at its anterior end, and these teeth were fully exposed to view ; but 

 in another (preserved in alcohol) the entrance to the pharyngeal tube was 



~a 



Fig. 2. 



Fig. 1. 



Fig. 1. — The pharynx of Odontosyllis suteri (enlarged), a, the 

 chitinous band along the ventral margin of the 

 entrance ; b, the teeth ; c, the junction with the 

 gizzard. 



Fig. 2. — -The band, with its teeth, a, the reflected end. 



closed, the anterior margin was reflected over it, and, owing to a right and 

 left compression, the entrance was reduced to a narrow vertical cleft, so 

 that the teeth were only rendered evident when the tube was slit open and 

 the walls spread out. 



Now, in Kinberg's diagnosis of his genus Eurymedusa we find the 

 passage, " Maxilla unica, margine pyriformi, lateribus dilatatis, medio 

 carinata," &c. There is, then, only a single tooth. It is true that Ehlers, 

 in his account, speaks with some diffidence about the matter, for he says, 

 " At the entrance to the pharyngeal tube is a long non-denticulated ring 

 with a large tooth which appears as a pigmented fold projecting from the 

 wall. Probably, however, this is only the swelling from which the true 

 chitinous tooth has dropped away." His figure (pi. iii, fig. 9) is certainly 

 not very convincing. I suspect that Ehlers mistook for a tooth the 

 reflected end of the chitinous band. He was able to examine Kinberg's 

 type specimen, and though he found certain differences in the character 

 of the chaetae, and though Kinberg does not give a clear account of the 

 peristomial flap which covers the prostomium, and though the state of 

 preservation of the type did not allow him to study the everted pharynx, 

 yet, in spite of these discrepancies, Ehlers identified our worm with 

 Kinberg's. 



It may be that the specimen from Laysan collected by Schauinsland 

 and examined by Ehlers is really Kinberg's species ; but those from the 

 coast of New Zealand (one of which he received from Mr. Suter, from 

 Christchurch, and others from me, collected at Tasman Bay) are, I have 

 no doubt, identical with those which I have studied from other parts of 

 our coast and from the Kermadec Islands. 



Hence, as we have Ehlers' statement that his specimens are identical 

 with Kinberg's, it is necessary to give a new specific name to this New 

 Zealand species. I name it after Mr. H. Suter, who has done so much 

 for New Zealand natural history, not only by his monumental monograph 

 as a culmination to his extended work on our Mollusca, but also by his 

 generosity in giving specimens of various animals collected by him to those 

 engaged in the investigation of special groups. 



