106 On the Classification of the Annelides. 
If M. Quatrefages has introduced into his table a considerable 
number of new genera, which we shall not know until the pub- 
lication of the work itself, he has omitted a great number of 
others. In most cases, no doubt, he has been perfectly right. 
He appears to us to have systematically eliminated nearly all the 
names of M. Kinberg. The genera Aphrogenia, Halosydna, 
Antinoé, Harmothoé, and Hermadion do not figure in the family 
Aphroditea any more than the genera Eupompe, Panthalis, and 
Leanira. The genera added by M. Kinberg to the family of the 
Amphinomea—such as Lirione, Hermodice, and Eurythoé—are 
likewise eliminated. We repeat, M. Quatrefages has, no doubt, 
in the majority of cases, been right in uniting these genera to 
others; and he might even, in our opinion, have still further 
simplified his classification in some instances, as, for example, 
by uniting Polynoé and Lepidonotus, which pass insensibly into 
one another. Nevertheless the suppression of some genera has 
surprised us. Thus, among the genera which we have just enu- 
merated, Hurythoé appears to have more right to existence than 
the others. Dasychone, Sars, among the Serpulea, and Ophio- 
dromus, Sars, among the Phyllodocea, also appear to be good 
genera. ‘The same is perhaps true of Phyllochetopterus, Grube. 
No genus of Syllidea appears to be so clearly characterized as 
Pterosyllis, which is not even mentioned. Thysanoplea, Schm., 
and Drilidium, F. Miill., are nowhere named; but it is true that 
M. Quatrefages may not perhaps include them in the class of 
Annelides, the limits of which he restricts as much as possible. 
All these gaps are, no doubt, only apparent, and will be explained 
on the publication of the complete work. It is possible, indeed, 
that certain names, the absence of which has struck us, may 
have been eliminated for sufficient reasons, and may be replaced 
by one or other of the numerous new denominations which 
figure in the table. 
The work of M. Quatrefages will not be restricted to the An- 
nelides, in the sense which the author attaches to that word. 
It will also include a revision of the Gephyrea. One thing has 
particularly struck us in the portion of the table relating to the 
latter worms. In the family Sipunculea the author distinguishes 
only two genera—Sipunculus, with simple buccal cirri, and Den- 
drostomum, with ramified or pinnate cirri. It would appear, 
therefore, that the author, rejecting the generic name Phascolo- 
soma of Leuckart, replaces it with that of Szpunculus, and that 
he unites to the genus Dendrostomum, Grube, all the Sipuncult 
of modern zoology. We can hardly understand by what argu- 
ments this revolution can be justified. The complete work will, 
we hope, furnish sufficient reasons in its support. 
* * * * ** * 
