250 L. N. G. KAMSAY. 



HISTORY AND SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF THE GENUS. 



Kinberg (2, p. 179), in 1865, " created " the family Niconidea to con- 

 tain those nereids in which the proboscis is devoid of papillae, whether 

 hard (paragnaths) or soft. 



This family contained three genera, distinguished thus : — 



/"uniform ...... Nicon. 



Parapodiax . ( gradually .... Leptonereis. 



{ & o I abruptly (with 3 changes) . Nicomedes. 



In these three genera he enumerated eight species, all new to science, 

 from the east and west coasts of South America, and from Tahiti. None 

 of these species is described in sufficient detail to be recognisable, and 

 only one is figured [(1, Taf. XX, Fig. 7), Lepto'nereis Icevis, n.sp., from 

 Guayaquil]. 



Claparede (3, p. 90) united Kinberg's three genera under the name of 

 Leptonereis, which he ranked as a sub-genus of Nereis, Linn. s. str. He 

 chose the name Leptonereis on account of its convenience as a sub-generic 

 name, and because it was the only one of the three genera which Kinberg 

 had figured. 



Claparede did not further characterise Leptonereis, but apparently 

 simply accepted Kinberg's definition of the " family " Niconidea, namely, 

 total absence of paragnaths or papillae from the proboscis. Further he 

 described Nereis (Leptonereis) glauca, a new species of which he appar-' 

 ently found several specimens in the Gulf of Naples, although in his 

 "Annelides Chetopodes du Golfe de Naples" he gives absolutely no 

 information as to its occurrence or habitat. He also figured the head 

 and anterior segments, proboscis, a parapod, and setae (most of his 

 figures are good, although a little " artificial " in appearance). 



In 1878 Grube described L. cebuensis from the Philippine Islands, and 

 in the same year Langerhans published his account of Leonnates pusillus. 

 Ten years later St. Joseph brought out his account of the annelids of the 

 coasts of Dinard. 



Grube and St. Joseph both followed Claparede in regarding Leptonereis 

 as a sub-genus of Nereis, but Mcintosh ranks it as a separate genus, 

 differing from Nereis Lin. in the absence of paragnaths and in the deeply 

 divided rami of the parapodia. 



My own view, based on the examination of a large amount of material 

 in all the groups of the genus Nereis, and in Leonnates and Leptonereis, 

 is that the last-named should be ranked as a genus distinct from both 



