Prof. E. Claparede on the Structure of the Annelida. 341 



results an actual falsification of scientific history, an unconscious 

 falsification, no doubt, but one which we must nevertheless re- 

 gret. If, in the course of this memoir, I often refer to the 

 labours of old observers, this is partly as a protest against the 

 ostracism with which they are beginning to be treated. 



However, if M. de Quatrefages has frequently thought that 

 he could dispense with the observations of his predecessors and 

 contemporaries, it is to his own detriment. How many errors 

 which I shall have to combat would have been avoided if the 

 author had conscientiously studied the works of Rathke, Delle 

 Chiaje, Grube, and many others, if he had taken count of the 

 investigations of histologists such as Kolliker, Leydig, &c. He 

 would not then, as has sometimes occurred to him (with regard 

 to the structure of the branchiae, for example), have made science 

 retrograde to the period of Pallas. 



This judgment may appear severe, but it will be amply justi- 

 fied. Nor do I think that the greatness of the work interdicts 

 one from indicating its defects; moreover that just pointed 

 out could not be concealed. There is a second upon which I 

 cannot keep silence. Why has M. de Quatrefages, whose know- 

 ledge of the Annelida is so admirable, permitted himself to be 

 induced to describe so many genera and species from individuals 

 preserved in spirits in the Paris Museum ? He knows better 

 than any one else that this kind of work is positively useless, 

 and that the Annelida can only be well studied at the seaside 

 and by means of living individuals. To describe as he has done 

 so many alcoholic varieties is to embarrass science with a caput 

 mortuum which will require many years to get rid of*. 



I shall follow step by step in these pages the introduction to 

 the 'Histoire Naturelle des Anneles,' but neither to reedit it 

 nor to criticise it in the style of a Zoilus. But if it is useless to 

 go over a multitude of facts which are established in it defini- 

 tively, I wish, nevertheless, to dwell upon some points in which 

 I cannot agree with the author. I also wish to recall many old 

 observations which ought not to be forgotten. In a general 

 way I adopt the terminology of M. de Quatrefages; and when I 

 depart from it, it is not without indicating my reasons. 



Regions of the Body and Appendages. 



After much discussion as to the equivalence of the external 



parts of the body in Annelida, most recent authors have adopted 



the nomenclature of M. Grube, who gives the name of "buccal 



segment " to the segment which bears the mouth, and that of 



* A very comjietent judge, Prof. Schjcidte, of Copeiiliagen, said to me 

 only a few days ago, " The museums press heavily upon science " — a phrase 

 onlv too true in many cases. 



