112 M.A. de Quatrefages on the Classification of the Annelides. 
trace of such organs. The Cryptonote have the back covered 
with long sete, which cross each other almost in the median 
line; the Spintheres, on the contrary, have the back entirely 
naked, ridged transversely by thirty little edges, roughened 
by bristles which scarcely pass beyond the surface of the skin— 
characters which are presented by some Chloremea. The feet 
are biramose wm Cryptoncta; in Spinther they are uniramose. 
Far from presenting, in the latter, sete long and numerous 
enough to cover the entire back with the exception of a narrow 
median line, they have only short and straight sete; among 
these sete there are some which terminate in an appendage com- 
pletely resembling that of some Chloremea; finally, they are 
coated with an albuminous matter as in the true Chloremea; 
and this is a very exceptional character, of which Stimpson says 
nothing in connexion with his Cryptonota. 
These contrasts are sufficient, I think, to enable my readers 
to judge between M. Claparede and me. They have seen what 
is the opinion of my learned opponent. Mine may be summed 
up in few words. 
The Cryptonote are incontestably Amphinomea; but is the 
genus to be retained or combined with Huphrosyne, which Stimp- 
son himself recognized as very nearly allied to it? I cannot 
answer this question, for want of sufficient details. Stimpson 
states that he had only a single specimen of his C. citrina, and 
that he could not describe it with all the details desirable. I 
have therefore left the genus among the zncerte sedis. 
To determine the position belonging to Spinther is by no 
means so easy. Johnston makes it an Aphroditean, although 
recognizing its want of the most essential characters of the 
family. Grube, although leaving it in that family, states that he 
thinks it more nearly allied to Amphinome or Siphostomum 
(Chloremea). Everything seems to me to be in favour of the 
latter collocation. ‘Thus the form of the composite setze, the ex- 
istence of an apparently mucous matter on the feet, and the very 
short hairs with which the back is roughened, were three characters 
which at least established some relationship between this type 
and some Chloremea. But the exceptional form of the inferior 
appendages of the feet, and the absence of many details, prevented 
me from assigning it a place in the systematic series of the family. 
I therefore left it among the zcerte sedis, whilst placing it in 
the group from which it appeared to me to depart the least. 
6. I believe I have justified my course in this particular case. 
Ts this to say that I absolutely repel the charge of having com- 
mitted errors of synonymy? By no means. On the contrary, 
I have a too painful conviction that, in spite of all my efforts, 
more than one must have escaped me. I must here confine my- 
