10 THE VOYAGE OF H.M.S. CHALLENGER. 



Carinina internal communications between the blood-si^aces and the nephridiau channels 

 exist, communications by which the cavity of the blood-spaces is thus directly connected 

 with the exterior. As I have, however, remarked, I could not detect the presence of 

 similar communications in my two specimens. 



The aspect of the spongy portion of the uepbridium and its connection with the 

 canalicular j)ortion, as well as of this with the exterior, is represented in PI. IV. 

 figs. 1, 2, 4. 



As to the generative apparatus of Carinina, I can only observe that one of the 

 Challenger specimens is a male, that the fragment contains only two sperm-sacs in its 

 posterior portion, and that these communicate with the exterior, each by a separate pore. 

 Whether in Carinina the sperm-sacs are disposed metamerically as in most Nemertea, 

 or irregularly distributed beneath the dorsal integument as in Carinella, could not be 

 made out from this specimen. 



The general distribution of integumentary and muscular tissue, as well as of the 

 cavities of the intestine {D), the proboscidian sheath {Ps), and the blood-space (bl) in the 

 body of Carinina is indicated by the various figures of PL II. The proboscis itself is 

 here indicated by Pr, the rhynchodajum by aPr. 



Family E u p o l 1 1 d ^. 



Eupolia, n. gen. 

 Folia, delle Chiaje. 



Integument generally thick in comparison loith the body musculature, the two layers 

 of contractile fibres of the integument never coalescing with the outer larger one of longi- 

 tudinal body muscles as in certain Cerebratuli. Proboscis and proboscidian sheath thin 

 and inconspicuous. Brain-lobes compact, posterior lobe long, loedged in between the 

 superior and inferior ones. Often a commisssure of the longitudinal nerve-stems beloio 

 the anus. No longitudinal cephalic slits but transverse grooves as in many Hoplo- 

 nemertea. 



The necessity for creating a new generic name for the species of Palseonemertea I 

 am now about to discuss is evident from the following considerations. The generic name 

 Polia, when it was applied by delle Chiaje to a genus of Nemertea which he introduced 

 into science (Polia delineata being the tjrpical species of this genus) had already been 

 preoccupied in Zoology by Ochsenheimer, who in 1826 so designated a genus of 

 Lepidoptera. This reason alone suffices to reject it heneefortli from Nemertean nomen- 

 clature, and this rejection is also facilitated by the fact that the same generic name has 

 been used by other naturalists, such as Quatrefages (XXVIII.), Schneider (XXXl), &c., 

 for Nemertea widely different from delle Chiaje's typo.. It was an error of judgment on 



