LEODICID^ OF THE WEST INDIAN REGION. 9 



It will be noted that genera superficially as unlike as Onuphis and Lumbrinereis 

 would be grouped together because of their jaw structures, while those super- 

 ficially as similar as Lumbrinereis and Arabella would be separated. Claperede 

 (1870, pp. 386-390) objected to Ehlers's arrangement on the ground that the jaws 

 have too vai'iable a character to be used in this fashion. Later (1887, pp. 64-69) 

 Ehlers, though retaining his main divisions, admits that it is often difficult to say 

 in which one certain genera should be placed. His statement that Stauronereis 

 has a two-branched setal lobe in its parapodium is based on his observation of 

 S. rubrovittatus (1864-1868, plate xviii, figure 3), but Pruvot and Rachovitza 

 (1895, p. 359) assert, after an examination of this species, that Ehlers's observations 

 were inaccurate. This does not necessarily mean that Stauronereis does not 

 belong in a different group from the other Leodicidce, but merely that Ehlers's 

 criterion was not well chosen. Grube (18786, pp. 79-106, and 1879, pp. 78-115) 

 classifies the family as follows: 



1. Labi dog natha. Characters essentially the same as Ehlers's Eunicea lab. tentaculata. 



2. LumbrieonereidcE. Maxilla; in two long rows, the hindmost a forceps. Parapodium 

 uniramous, with simple seta", though compound ones mny 

 occur in anterior somites. Gill, ventral cirri, long dorsal 

 cirri, tentacles and subtentacles are lacking. Eyes seldom 



Family Eunicea. \ present. 



Group 1. With flattened leaf-like dorsal cirrus. 

 Group 2. With no dor.sal cirrus. 



3. Staurocephalidce. Maxilla; in two long rows on either side, very small and numerous, 

 the posterior one not a forcep. Parapodium uniramous. 

 Simple and compound setae, 2 tentacles and 2 palps. With 

 dorsal and ventral cirri, and no gills. Eyes two pairs at most . 



Kinberg (1864, pp. 559-574) gave as the first family of his Eunicea the Onu- 

 phia^a, which he distinguished from the Eunicea proper by the possession of two 

 antennae and two palps which are not represented in the former, the family Eunicea 

 forming his second family. By a number of later writers the Onuphididce have been 

 given the rank of a family. Thus Mcintosh (1885) divides the group into: 1, 

 Staurocephalidce; 2. Lumbrinereidce; 3, Eunicidce; 4, Onuphididce. The chief 

 characteristics separating the last two families are the possession of the frontal 

 tentacles or frontal palps by the Onuphididce. This classification has been aban- 

 doned by most recent writers, who include such genera as possess these frontal 

 structures with the Eunicidce. In his later work, Mcintosh (1910) does not follow 

 his former method, though he gives on page 403 the subfamily Onuphididce, under 

 which he arranges all of the genera usually put in the Eunicidce as well as the 

 Onuphididce. I find it difficult to follow the reason for his arrangement in this 

 paper, which is as follows: 



Family Eunicidce (p. 343). 

 StauroccphalidtE. 



Eunice priognaiha dicopa (Ehlers 1869) (p. 350). 

 Eunicea labiodgnatha nuda (p. 368). Under this he describes Lumbrieonereis. 

 B. Eunicea priognaiha. 



B. 1. Eunicsa priognaiha monocopa (p. 392). Under this he describes Arabella and Driloneries. 

 could not find any A to correspond with the B of this heading. 

 Subfamily Onuphidce (p. 403). Under this he describes Diopalra, Unuphis, Eunice, Hyalinaecia, and Nematone- 

 reis. 



