** Note on the Classification of the Annelides.” 108 
The position assigned to the Tomopteridea among the Seden- 
tary Annelides also appears fitted to call up some objections. 
The name in any case is ill applied to the Tomopterides, which, 
with the Amphinomea, are, as regards their mode of life, the 
errant Annelides par eacellence. Wowever, the Tomopteridea 
constitute so anomalous and degraded a type that they agree 
but ill with any of the orders of Annelides, although still re- 
maing incontestably Annelides. 
With the exceptions just indicated, the division of the Anne- 
lides into twenty-six families proposed by M. Quatrefages leads 
to natural groups; nevertheless there exists a great number of 
genera, often sufficiently well known, which the author has not 
been able to bring into any of the divisions of his classification. 
Ife enumerates these in appendices to the families with which 
the genera in question seem to him to have most affinity, under 
the name of “genera incerte sedis.” The number of these 
genera of uncertain position is considerable: there are 64 out 
of a total number of 245. It is evident that M. Quatrefages 
deserves praise for the prudence with which he has proceeded, 
preferring to leave an open question (garder protocole ouvert) in 
all cases of uncertainty than to assign, as is generally done, an 
arbitrary position to anomalous genera. There are, however, 
cases in which the author’s uncertainty seems to arise from an 
insufficient acquaintance with the animals in question. 
We may cite a few examples ‘of this. The genus Zygolobus 
of Grube, as to the position of which the author is uncertain, is 
as typical a Lumbrinerean as possible, in the sense that M. Qua- 
trefages gives to that family*. The Spiones are beyond any 
doubt Leucodorea; the Magelone (placed at the end of the 
Ariciea, no doubt by mistake) are also Leucodorea; the Poly- 
cirrt are degraded Terebellea, probably identical with the genus 
Apneumea of M. Quatrefages ; the Halimede of Rathke are true 
Hesionea, generically identical with Psamathe, Johnst., which 
the author places without hesitation in that family, &c. &e. 
Sometimes we seem to remark in M. Quatrefages’s table errors 
of synonymy combined with astonishing approximations. Thus 
the author places Spinther, Johnst., as a genus incerte sedis at 
the end of the Chloremea, and Cryptonotus, Stimps., also as 
incerte sedis, at the conclusion of the Amphinomea. Now these 
two genera are synonymous with each other and also with the 
genus Oniscosoma, Sars, which the author has for some reason 
left out of his nomenclature. Moreover the investigations of 
* We may say, in passing, that we doubt whether the separation of the 
family Hunicea, as hitherto understood, into two distinct families, accord- 
ing to the presence (Eunicea) or absence (Lumbrinerea) of branchiz, is 
always practically applicable. 
