Ghcetopoda of the Virginian Coast. 3 
bottoms." The rocks were a thin layer of dead shells, 
that had been washed into the deeper parts of the channels 
and remained there. These shells hadf^been very tho- 
roughly excavated by a species of^^spouge and other 
boring animals, and in the galleries thus formed most of 
the smaller species of annelids were found. 
The results of the work, so far as concerns the annelids 
may be summarized as follows: 
Number of Families, represented, - - - 23 
" Genera, 49 
*' Species, - - - - - - 59 
The number of families would by many be regarded as 
too small, as I have followed Grube and Ehlers, rather than 
Kinberg and Malmgren in regard to family limitations ; 
using Eunicidse, for example, to include Marphysa, Lum- 
briconereis and Staurocephalus, each of which has been 
referred (and perhaps properly) to a distinct family. In 
the generic classification, on the other hand, I have usually 
followed what may be called the modern arrangement. 
Nevertheless it seems very probable that the views of Prof. 
Grube as to the proper limitations of the genera of seti- 
gerous annelids are correct, and will ultimately prevail. 
Of the genera adopted, four are new and six have not pre- 
viously been reported from our coast. Twenty-seven of 
the species are believed to be new, besides four previously 
described, but new to our coast. 
I am under obligations to Prof. Verrill both for advice 
and for the use of specimens. 
My thanks are also due to Mr. J. A. Lintner of the N. 
Y. State Museum of Natural History, who has used his 
wide knowledge and experience to supplement my defi- 
ciences both in knowledge and experience, in the kindest 
and pleasantest manner possible. 
T. R. Featherstonhaugh, M. D., of Schenectady, N. Y., 
