lidi'striis bvguarl. iiro i iniu taiiko dc vii;tigaste, ocli ego. 

 tvitVi'lsutau betydelsen af goda gemiskarakterar. Deres gil- 

 tiglu't som sådana anser jag tillVllest ådagalagd iiiVen al' 

 cicu omstaiuliglu'ten. att hos samtliga andra havs annulaia 

 tutborsten iiro danadc pa saninui sat eller el'ter sania typ 

 lios arterna inoni hvarje tor ett genns ahuiuit erkiind grn])p. 

 ja stiindoMi inoni hele taniiljer. Med olikheten i horstens 

 bygnad tolje alltid olikheter i djurets hela utseende ocli 

 organisation, åtniinstone hvacl de yttre anatomiske karak- 

 tererna betriitier". 



Elter di' her citerede Ord skulde man vente, at der 

 lihuidt Piih/iKicriii' landtes en temmelig betydelig Forskjel- 

 lighi'd. ikke alene med Hensyn til Børsternes Bygning, 

 men også med Hensyn til Dyrenes ydre anatomiske l\jen- 

 detegn. Og dog er dette ingenlunde Tilfældet. livad man 

 ousaa udfn videre kan se af Malmgreiis egne Figurer; 

 Uyreni' ere hinanden saa lige, at man neppe uden eii om- 

 hyggelig detaljeret Undersøgelse er istand at skjelne dem 

 Ira hinanden : især gjælder dette Exem]3larer ophevarede i 

 Alkohol: ja Ligheden gaar saa vidt. at Møbius. som oven- 

 for nævnt, har ment, at ikke mindre end 4 Dyr. der al' 

 ^Lalragren ere opførte under 4 forskjellige Slægter. kun 

 ere A^arieteter af en og samme Form. en Opfatning, som 

 P. Taiiher ' ikke alene deler, men ydeidigere udvider der- 

 hen, at han til de 4 Dyr ogsaa føler LceniUa mollis og 

 Læ)iiUa ctUia samt Lagisca rarispiiia = Lug'ism propinqi'a. 

 Medens Mobius. som allerede omtalt, til Yidnesbyrd om 

 sin Opfatnings Kigtighed dog anfører- Malmgrens egne Be- 

 skrivelser af de omtalte Dyr. stiller Tauber uden Bemierk- 

 ninger de af ham medtague Dyr ind som Synonymer under 

 Hamwihoe imhyicata. medens det dog skulde synes, at viere 

 en Undersøgelse værd. om ikke de nævnte Dyr ialfald 

 kunde opføres som selvstændige x\i'ter, øm de end ikke kuinie 

 henføres til egne Slægter. Men jeg maa antage. at Herr 

 Tau])er ikke har séet de Dyr. han saaledes slaar sammen 

 med Harmothoe hnbrieata: thi den. der har seet f. Ex. 

 L(((/iscu rar/splna kan umuligt tro. at denne og Harmothoe 

 hiiJiricuta ere sannne Dyr. Man behøver ellers kun at se 

 paa Malmgrens Figur af L. no'ispina for at overbevise sig 

 herom. ]\[edens de af Møbius og Tauber sanimenslaaede 

 ■Dyr utvjvlsonit ere vel karaktiserede Arter, kunne de der- 

 mod neppe med Kette henføres til særegne Slægter. Og 

 allermindst k;ui hertil bruges Børsterne , der hos næ- 

 sten samtlige Poli/nocr ere hinanden saa lige, at det ofte 

 kan have sin store Vanskelighed at kjende dem fra hinan- 

 den. og om forskjellige Typer af Børster kan der ])aa 

 ingensomhelst Maade være Tale. At dé dorsale Børster 

 hos somme Dyr ere tykkere eller kortere end de ventrale 

 eller omvendt, samt at de ventrale Børster ere delte eller 

 udelte i Spidseii kan ikke betragtes som forskjellige Typer 

 for Bygningen, ligesom disse smaa Forskjelligheder i Bør- 

 steformerue heller ikke give Dyrene nogen særegen Karak- 

 ter. Typen 1'or Børsterne er den samme for alle Polynoer 

 med delvis l^ndtagelse kun for Melænis Loveni og Polynoe 

 si-olapi'iidr/ixi's Vedkommende, nemlig for de dorsale en let 



important, and mu>t un([uestionably rank as true generic 

 characters. Their validity as such is. 1 think, sufficiently 

 manifest from the fact of the pedal bristles in all other 

 marine Annnlafu having the same structure, or the same 

 tyi)e. in the species of every group constituting, as gene- 

 rally understood, a gen\is. nay sometimes throughout an 

 entire family. Dissimilarity of structure in the bristles is 

 invariably accompanied by general dissimilarity of appea- 

 rance and organisation, as regards at least the external 

 anatomical characters of the animal." 



From what is stated here, a considerable difference 

 might be inferred to exist between the members of "the 

 family Polynoida', and not only as concerns the structure 

 of the bristles, but also with regard to the external ana- 

 tomical features of tlu' animals. This, however, is not the 

 case, as will at once apjiear from a glance at Malmgren's 

 own drawings. IndeiHl. unless carefully examined in de- 

 tail, it is hardly possilde to distinguish between them, 

 so closely do the animals resemble one another. This ap- 

 plies more particularly to specimens preserved in spirits, 

 the resemblance in such being so great, that Mobius. as 

 previously stated, held 4 animals, established by Malmgren 

 as 4 new genera, to be merely varieties of one and the 

 same form. — a view which P. Tauber ' not only shares, 

 but found reason to extend, regarding as additional varie- 

 ties Lcenilla mollis, Lænilla alba: and Lagisca rarispina 

 (Lar/isca propinqra). Mobius giv'es. as previously stated, 

 in support of his construction, Malmgren's own diagno- 

 ses; Avhereas Tauber simply refers as synonyms, with- 

 out remark, the animals in .question to Harmothoe 

 iiiihricata. Meanwhile, admitting the establishment of sepa- 

 rate genera for the said animals to be out of the question, 

 they are possibly entitled to rank as distinct species, 

 Tauber, however, can hardly know from autopsy the ani- 

 mals he has thus confounded \s\t\i Harmothoe imbricata; for 

 no one who has seen, for instance. Lagisca rarispina. can 

 possibly take that animal to be the same as Harmothoe 

 imbricata. Indeed, this is sufticiently obvious from Malm- 

 gren's drawing. Hence the animals confounded together 

 by Mobius and jTauber are beyond a doubt specihcally 

 distinct. To the rank of genera, on the other hand, they 

 can hardly pretend; and certainly the last feature to. 

 adduce as a generic character would be. if justly consi- 

 dered, the structure of tiie bristles, which are so remar- 

 kably alike in well-nigh all Polgnoæ, that very considerable 

 difficulty is frequently experienced in distinguishing between 

 them: and as for types of bristles, there is nothing of the 

 kind, characters founded on such an assumption being 

 altogether spurious. The fact of the dorsal bristles being 

 shorter or thicker than the ventral, or viee-versa, and that 

 of the ventral bristles being cleft or not cleft at the points, 

 cannot be regarded as typical peculiarities of structure; nor 

 do these minute diti'erences in the form of the bristles 

 furnish the animal with any true character, generic or 

 specilic. The type of the bristles is the same in all 



Aniiulata daniva. 



' Aiiii'tdata tUiuica. 



