118 



LEODICIDiE OF THE WEST INDIAN REGION. 



When alive, A. diphyllidia may easily be recognized by its characteristic color and 

 by the soft, slimy body, resembling in this respect the Phyllodocids. Like them, it 

 secretes a mass of transparent mucus around itself when put into clean water, and it is 

 usually found with more or less of this material clinging to it. It Hves in crevices of 

 the decaying coral rock. 



Schmarda (1861, p. 120) lists this as Oenotie. His diagnosis states that it has 

 "tentacula duo minima (v. nulla)," but his figure plainly shows that by "tentacula" 

 he meant palp. This was also pointed out by Ehlers (1864-1868, p. 407). At the same 

 time, Ehlers demonstrates that a misunderstanding of these terms led Kinberg (1864, 

 p. 571) to define a new genus, Andromache, for Schmarda's Oenone, on the assumption 



Text-figures 429 to 434. 

 Aglaurides diphyllidia Schmarda. 



429. First parapodium x33. 



430. Tenth parapodium x33. 



431. Middle parapodium x33. 



432. Acicula x310. 



433. Maxilla x20. 



434. Mandible x20. 



43L 



that his specimen had two tentacles. Ehlers (1864-1868, p. 408) defines a new genus, 

 Cirrobranchia, for members of this family having foliaceous dorsal cirri, 3 short tentacles, 

 1 pair of eyes, and 5 pairs of plates in the maxilla. Grube, however, showed (1878, p. 

 173) that this is synonymous with Halla, which has precedence. 



At first I supposed this species to be identical with that described by Ehlers as Oenone 

 diphyllidia (1887, p. 109, plate 34, figures 1-7), but it is entirely unlike it in the form of 

 the maxillary plates. Ehlers figures no tentacles, and I found no indication of the tubes 

 which he mentions as belonging to this species. The apparent lack of tentacles might 

 have been an oversight, but the difference in maxillary structure puts Ehlers's animals in 

 an entirely different species from mine. Schmarda's figure (1861, p. 120, text-figure) is 

 evidently drawn from a mutilated specimen, but the number and arrangement of plates 

 and teeth show a much more evident resemblance to my figure 5 than to Ehlers's figure 6, 



