MORPHOLOGY OF THE AMPHINEURA. 227 



(1S«) M. Schiff, "Beitrjigezur Auatoiiiie von Chiton piceus," ' Zeitschr. 

 f. wisseusch. Zoologie,' Bd, ix, p. 12. 



(19) A. Sedgwick, " On certain points in the Anatomy of Chiton," ' Proc. 



Royal Soc' London, Dec, 1881. 



(20) /. jy. Spengel, " Ueber das Geruchsorgan und das Ncrvensystem der 



Mollusken," ' Zeitschritt fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie,' vol. 35, 

 p. 30. 



(21) jr. E. Troschel, 'Das Gebiss der Schnecken.' Berlin, 1856. 



(22) T. TuUberg, " Neomenia, a New Genus of Invertebrate Animals," 



'Bchang till k. Svenska vet. Akad. Handliugar,' vol. 3, No. 13. 



(23) -C. Brandt, "Ueber das Ncrvensystem von Chiton fascicularis," 



'Bull. Akad. Petersb.,' t. xiii, 1869, p. '462. 



Fostscript. — While the foregoing paper was passing through 

 the press an article appeared in No. 108 of the ' Zoologischer 

 Anzeiger/ written by Kowalevsky and Marion, in which ana- 

 tomical details are furnished concerning certain Neomenia-like 

 animals which these authors have obtained at Marseilles, and 

 which is announced as being preliminary to a more elaborate 

 paper with accompanying illustrations. 



The paper is of a very revolutionary tendency, proposing no 

 less than to look upon Tullberg's description of Neomenia cari- 

 nata as having been erroneously inverted. Tullberg is said to 

 have described (1) as podenor " lateral glands " what are in 

 reality anterior salivary glands; (2), as calcareous penes what is 

 in reality a radula ; (3); as supra-rectal ''egg-bag'' what is an 

 intestinal diverticulum above the pharynx ; (4) as branchiae 

 alongside of the anus what are pharyngeal fringes ; (5), as a 

 protrusible pharynx what are no less than oviducts and a 

 uterus, with their respective internal intercommunicating 

 cavities. 



In the following number of the ' Zoologischer Anzeiger,' I 

 exposed the reasons upon which my utter disbelief in the hypo- 

 thesis of these two distinguished authors was founded. I will 

 not enter in detail into this controversy, nor give a translation of 

 my refutations in the ' Zoologischer Anzeiger,' as I have reason to 

 suppose this periodical within easy reach of any reader of this 

 article. It may suffice to refer the reader to the comparisons 

 drawn in the foregoing pages, and to remind him that personal 

 investigation of Neomenia carinata (which was neglected by 

 Kowalevsky and Marion) has enabled me to confirm the results 

 of Tullberg's observations — as has already been done before by 

 Koren and Danielssen, and by Graff — in all important points, 

 and thus to conclude (1) that the lateral glands are not salivary 

 glands ; (2), that calcareous penes are present and not to be 

 confounded with a radula ; (3) that Tullberg's '' egg-bag " is 

 the pericardium, and not an alimentary diverticulum above the 

 pharynx ; (■!■) that a posterior tuft of branchise s present ; (5) 



