LEODICID^ OF THE WEST INDIAN EEGION. 11 



Genus LEODICE Savigny. 



J. C. Savigny, Systeme des Ann^Iides, etc., 1820, p. 13. 



Prostomium two- or four-lobed, the lobing often obscure. With five tentacles and 

 one pair of eyes, the latter situated between the bases of the inner and outer paired 

 tentacles. A pair of nuchal cirri on the second body somite. Parapodia begin on the 

 third somite. Gills on a greater or lesser number of somites, situated on or near the 

 dorsal cirrus. Jaw apparatus of maxilla and mandible, the former with forceps and 

 two pairs of toothed plates, with an unpaired toothed plate on the left. Smaller 

 accessory plates terminal to the toothed. Mandible of two sj'mmetrical halves joined 

 anteriority, their anterior border apparently forming a beveled cutting edge. One or 

 two pairs of anal cirri, in the latter case the pairs often very unequal in size. 



I have earlier given the reason why the old name Eunice should be changed to 

 Leodice. By various writers the genus has been subdivided, following Grube (1878'', 

 p. 98), who based the division on the form of the prostomium, putting those with a four- 

 lobed prostomium in the subgenus Eriphylc (Kinberg, 1864, p. 561), while those with a 

 two-!obed prostomium were put in the subgenus Leodice (Savigny, 1820, p. 13). Gravier 

 (1900) uses the same terminology, but because the frontal lobes are often very indistinct 

 he bases the division on the form of the gill, under EriphyJe those having gills of one 

 filament more or less reduced, and under Leodice those with pectinate or arborescent 

 gills. If this supposes that a four-lobed prostomium and simple gills occur together, the 

 observations I have made on the West Indian genera do not bear out his hypothesis. 

 The two in which there is the least gill development, L. carihcea and L. deniicvlala, have 

 a markedly two-lobed prostomium. I see no reason, from a study of the material I 

 have, for subdividing the genus. If I were to attempt such a division, I should start it 

 with L. cariboea with its extremely feeble gill development and its very peculiar mandible, 

 allying it with L. sicilicnsis of European waters and with L. paloloides of California 

 (Moore, 1909, p. 246). Gravier (1900) made a similar suggestion, that the peculiar 

 "facies" of L. siciliensis distinguished it from all other species and should be made the 

 basis of a distinct subgenus. 



The genus includes the largest members of the family, and, in fact, the largest 

 polychaete annelids known. 



Leodice longicirrata Webster. 



(Plate 1, figures 1 to 4; text-figures 3 to 12.) 



Eunice longicirrata Webster, 1884, p. 318, plate 12, figures 75-80. 

 Eunice articidata Bhlers, 1887, p. 83, plate 24, figures 8-10. 

 Eunice articulata Treadwell, 1901, p. 196. 

 Eunice articulata Augener, 1906, p. 130. 

 Leodice elegans Verrill, 1900, p. 640. 

 Leodice margaritacea Verrill, 1900, p. 644. 



Eunice tittata Delle Chiaje var? Mcintosh, 1885, p. 276, plate xxiviii, figures 3, 4, 5; plate xix a, 

 figures 16, 17. 



A medium-sized species, one of 194 somites being 237 mm. long, 4 mm. wide at the 

 anterior end. 



Anteriorly (plate 1, figures 1 to 3), each somite except the ninth is marked along 

 its anterior border by a brown band, more or less of the posterior border being uncolored. 

 The prostomium is four-lobed, and the greater part of its dorsal surface is covered by a 

 brown pigment, leaving a circular colorless patch on its dorsal median surface and a 

 much smaller patch on either side, near the outer paired tentacle. This pigment is 

 continued toward the ventral surface in three lines, one median and one on either side 

 between the head lobes. The basal portion of each tentacle is colored, this coloration 

 being continued to a very sUght extent on to the first tentacle joint. The apices of the 



