AMPHINOMIDAE 29 



quadrangular cushion behind. A pair of lateral tentacles is set far forward on this 

 cushion, and behind them is the anterior pair of red reniform eyes. The posterior pair 

 of minute round eye-spots is set at the back of the prostomial cushion, in such a 

 manner that the two pairs of eyes are at the corners of a square. The small median 

 tentacle is also set far back on the prostomial cushion just in front of the origin of the 

 caruncle, which is a flexuous crest reaching to the 4th chaetiger. There is a pair of 

 palps on the sides of the buccal lobe. The first three chaetigers are involved with the 

 mouth. The gills are small, consisting of four or five digitiform processes; they 

 begin on the and chaetiger. 



The feet are set widely apart, and the bristles are few. There is a dorsal cirrus 

 articulated at its base and longer than the branchial processes; and a short ventral 

 cirrus. The dorsal bristles are of four kinds : (i) toothed harpoon-chaetae similar to those 

 figured by Kinberg (Fig. 9, G,s'), (2) straight, smooth chaetae (Fig. i, b) similar in 

 outline to the harpoon-chaetae, (3) bristles of moderate length with a lateral tooth and 

 a number of widely spaced serrations going to the tip (Fig. i, c), (4) a few (two or 

 three) very long and fine capillary bristles with a lateral spur, finely hispid to the tip, 

 and similar to that figured by Kinberg (Fig. g, G, s). In some the lateral spur is more 

 pronounced than that in Kinberg 's figure. 



The ventral chaetae are of two sorts: (i) numerous bristles of moderate length with 

 a lateral tooth and a number of serrations reaching to the tip (Fig. 1, d), (2) one or two 

 very fine and long capillary bristles with a lateral tooth and finely serrated to the tip 

 (Fig. i,e); these bristles are either absent or lost from a large percentage of the neuro- 

 podia. There is a lobular pygidium. 



Remarks. My specimen agrees closely and in detail with Kinberg's description and 

 figures except in the following details. Kinberg's figure (9, B) of the head shows the 

 median tentacle and the caruncle set further forward on the prostomial pad than they 

 are in my example, but this is corrected in his second figure (9, B") of the head seen 

 from in front. His two figures do not agree. Moreover, the caruncle reaches back to 

 the 4th chaetiger in my specimen, and not to the 3rd, as in Kinberg's figure. He describes 

 it however as "segmentum quintum attingens." Kinberg appears also to have over- 

 looked the smooth type of straight dorsal chaeta, but unless the absence of teeth be 

 noted, these might easily be confused with the harpoon-chaetae, which they closely 

 resemble in outline. 



The posterior end of my specimen is slightly damaged, but, as far as I can see, the 

 pygidium is a rounded lobe rather than the large plate shown in Kinberg's figure (9, x). 

 Horst (1912, p. 36) wrongly attributes a number of specimens from the Malay Archi- 

 pelago to this species under a misapprehension of the characters oiE. chilensis. Kinberg's 

 figure 9, G, s" represents the shorter type of dorsal bristle with the lateral tooth and 

 serrated tip, and Horst writes, "The setae of our worms show a great resemblance to 

 those of E. chilensis figured by Kinberg on PI. xii, figs. 9, G, ti, s", s' and s; however, 

 I suggest that a mistake has crept into this delineation and that s" should be u and also 



