Lcodicidcc from Fiji and Sofnoa. 165 



is obviously of generic importance, a new genus should be created for the reception 

 of this species telvra. 



I have collected Oejioyie in Bermuda, Tobago, and the Dry Tortugas in the Atlantic 

 and in Samoa in the Pacific. In a description of the West Indian species I suggested 

 (Treadwell, 1921a, pp. 118, 119), that the species described by Ehlers (1887, pp. 109- 

 111, plate 34, figs. 1-7) as Oenone diphyllidia of Schmarda (1861, p. 120, plate 32, 

 fig. 256) was really Oenone fulgida Savigny, and that those of my own collections were 

 Aglaurides {Oenone) diphyllidia Schmarda, which might be identical with Aglaurides 

 (Oenone) symmetrica of Fauvel (Fauvel, 1917, p. 252). Augener (1913, p. 290), who 

 apparently had access to Ehlers'd collections, reported that he had identified as Oenone 

 fid^ida specimens from south Australia, and that a comparison of these with Ehlers's 

 West Indian specimens showed that the two are identical. As will be noted imme- 

 diately, the jaw structure is important in this connection, and it is perfectly possible 

 that Augener did not examine this organ, but made his comparisons entirely from 

 surface features. 



I have made a careful comparison of my West Indian with my Samoan specimens 

 and find that they agree in every respect except the form of the jaws. Text-figures 

 57, 58, and 59 are outline drawings of the anterior end, the tenth and the one-hundredth 

 parapodium of the Samoan Oenone, while text-figures 60, 61, and 62 are corresponding 

 drawings of specimens from Tobago in the West Indies. In other details, such as 

 size, coloration, and habits, they are alike. It seems obvious that, so far as these 

 structures are concerned, there are no differences of specific value between the animals 

 from the two localities. Reexamination of my Bermuda material shows that the 

 acicula I figured (Treadwell, 1921a, text-fig. 452) was not typical and that the aciculse 

 agree with those drawn in Fauvel's figure 52. 



On the other hand, there are decided differences in the form of the jaw, as shown in 

 text-figures 63 and 64. The jaw shown in text-figure 63 agrees in all essentials with 

 Fauvel's description if due allowance is made for a slight difference in the position of the 

 plates. In profile the teeth look large and sharp, but when rolled so as to be seen in 

 full face they have the appearance shown by Fauvel, and in one specimen the second 

 and third plates of the right-hand series had more teeth than here represented. The 

 small plate adjoining the right-hand end of the carrier seems to me to be attached 

 to the larger one and its teeth are to be seen only in strong reflected light, appearing 

 then as bright spots. 



My Samoan specimens are evidently Oenone fulgida Savigny, which is synonymous 

 with Oenone diphyllidia Ehlers, while the ones I have seen from the West Indies are 

 0. diphyllidia Schmarda. It seems probable that this latter species is synonymous 

 with 0. symmetrica Fauvel. 



If my suggestion that all of the Leodicidse have two apodous somites is correct, 

 and if it be remembered that in Oenone either one or both pairs of eyes are not to be 

 seen in preserved material, the distinction usually made between Halla and Oenone 

 (see Gravier, 1900, p. 322, and Chamberlin, 1919a, p. 326) would appear of doubtful 

 accuracy. I have examined a specimen bought of the Naples Zoological Station as 

 Halla parthenopeia and two specimens identical with this belonging to the American 

 Museum of Natural History but without data, and find that they are certainly the 

 species described by Ehlers (1864-1868, p. 408, plate 17, figs. 25-34) as Cirrobranchia 

 parthenopeia. A second pair of eyes apparently escaped Ehlers's attention and he does 

 not mention the protrusible lobes which distinguish his genus Aglaurides from Cirro- 

 hranchia. Dissection of these specimens, however, shows the lobes lying under the 

 peristomial border exactly as in Oenone. It seems probable that Ehlers really had a 

 species of Oenone and probable that Halla was originally described from a member of 

 this genus. The matter could, I suppose, be settled only by reference to the original 

 type specimen, but I am skeptical as to the validity of Halla. Cirrobranchia, as Cham- 



