QUATREFAGE’S HISTOIRE NATURELLE. 39 
Audouin and Edwards. De Quatrefages. 
J. Antenne impaire ou médiane. 1. Antenne médiane. 
2. Antennes mitoyennes. 2. Antennes latérales. 
3. “8 externes. 3. Tentacules inférieurs. 
4, Cirrhes tentaculaires. s a3 supérieurs. 
i: mS 5. Cirrhes tentaculaires. , 
Grube. Kinberg. Humley. 
1. Tentaculumimpar. 1. Tentaculum. 1, Tentaculum prosto- 
2. Tentacula media. 2. Antenne. miale. 
3. Tentaculalateralia. 3. Palpi. 2. Cirrhi prostomiales 
4. Cirrhi tentaculares. 4. Cirrhi tentaculares, superiores, 
5. 5. Cirrhi buccales. 3. Cirrhi prostomiales 
inferiores. 
4, Cirrhiperistomiales. 
Of these it will be seen that the terminology of M. de 
Quatrefages is only a modification of that of Audouin 
and Edwards. It is an important modification, however, 
since he couples the third pair of appendages with the 
fourth, whilst the other authors, with the exception of 
Kinberg, couple them with the second. Kinberg’s names are 
extremely short and useful, but do not express any of the rela- 
tions of the parts. Professor Huxley’s names are valuable, 
since they serve to enforce the idea that each of these pairs of 
appendages correspond to the appendages—the cirrhi—of a 
somite. If we are to have asimple nomenclature, short, for use, 
we prefer Kinberg’s ; but if by the names given it is desirable 
to express the homologies of the parts, those of Professor 
Huxley are the best. M. de Quatrefages does not discuss in 
any way the structure of the prostomium and peristomium as 
consisting of modified somites ; and hence, though on account 
of the origin of their nerves he associates with the appendages 
of the peristomium, in name, what all other authors appear to 
have regarded as one pair of the appendages of the prostomium, 
we are at a loss to know whether he really considers the third 
pair of appendages, the “ palpi”’ of Kinberg, as belonging 
morphologically to that portion of the head in front of the 
mouth or to that portion around it. The omission of any 
attempt to discuss this question of the structure of the 
cephalic region is very much to be regretted. 
Applying his principle of “ antenna ”’ and “tentaculum ”’ to 
the sedentary forms, the author shows that in Terebella the 
prehensile cirrhi are modified “antenne,’”’ as also are the 
respiratory fans of Sabella and Serpula, whilst the opercula of 
Hermella, &c., arising from the peristomium—the buccal ring 
—are the homologues* of the tentacula or peristomial cirrhi. 
* M. de Quatrefages says “les analogues;” but here, as elsewhere, we 
observe that the terms “ homologue” and “analogue” have not with him 
