88 ALLAN HANCOCK PACIFIC EXPEDITIONS VOL.15 



no satisfactory separation has been made to divide the family ; as a result, 

 it has been difficult or impossible to distinguish many of the species from 

 one another. 



Important geographic studies have been those of Heinen (1911, pp. 

 6-36) who described 11 (8 valid) species from the Baltic Sea, Mcintosh 

 (1908, pp. 1-40) who recorded 10 species in the fauna of Great Britain, 

 Fauvel (1923, pp. 362-376) who gave 12 species in the fauna of France. 

 Ehlers (1868, pp. 582-638) made valuable contributions on many struc- 

 tures unknown before then. Recently Wesenberg-Lund (1949, pp. 292- 

 296) has described 4 species from the Iranian Sea. As seen below, the 

 nephtyids of the northeast Pacific from Alaska to western Mexico, can 

 be regarded as including 13 species in Nephtys and 3 in Aglaophamus. 



A brief summary of previous accounts is necessary to justify the 

 restoration of Aglaophamus Kinberg. Quatrefages (1865, pp. 413-435) 

 recognized Nephtys Cuvier and erected 2 new, Portelia and Diplo- 

 branchus, erroneously supposing the last 2 to have one pair and no 

 antennae respectively. Kinberg (1866, p. 239) recognized 4 genera, 

 Nephthys (sic) Portelia, and 2 newly erected ones, A glaophamus and 

 Aglaopheme. These 4 were separated from one another for supposed 

 differences in the embedded proboscidial jaws. In Nephtys they were said 

 to be ungulate, in Aglaopha?nus transverse and fusiform, and in Aglao- 

 pheme laterally depressed, subconical pieces with a trilobed base; they 

 were not described for Portelia. Kinberg referred 3 species to Nephtys 

 and single species to each of the other genera. 



Ehlers (1868, pp. 582-638) reviewed the earlier studies and con- 

 cluded that Kinberg's separation was invalid; he suppressed Aglaophamus 

 and Aglaopheme under Nephthys (sic) ; Portelia Quatrefages was re- 

 served for those species (P. rosea Quatrefages and possibly Nephthys 

 polyphara Schmarda) in which the prostomium was thought to have 

 only 2 antennae and the pygidium one pair of processes. Fauvel (1923, 

 p. 369) questionably referred the type of Portelia to Nephtys cirrosa 

 Ehlers, thus suppressing this as a valid generic name. The family was 

 thus again reduced to a single genus, Nephtys Cuvier. It is noteworthy 

 that Langerhans (1879, p. 305) had suggested dividing the family into 

 2 genera on the basis of the number of rows of proboscidial papillae,- 

 whether 22 or 14- but this author continued to use the name Nephthys 

 (sic) for both groups of species. 



Micronephthys Friedrich (1939, p. 123) was erected for one 

 species, Nephtys minuta Theel, from the Russian Arctic Ocean. At 

 least 2 others may be considered congeneric (see below). It should be 



