Prof. Grube on the Annelid Family Maldaniea. 395 
spathulata, Gr., is probably described from two extremities 
not belonging to the same species, and therefore to be removed 
provisionally from the system; and C. microcephala, Schm., 
seems, from the figure, to be engaged in the reproduction of 
the anterior extremity ; for the first segment in the figure bears 
bristles, and is therefore not the buccal segment, and the pro- 
cess in front of it by no means resembles the cephalic lobe of 
other Maldaniea. 
For the purpose of a general revision of the arrangement of 
the genera, the structure of the cephalic and caudal extremi- 
ties seems to the author to be particularly fitted; and he thinks 
that this arrangement may be most conveniently given in the 
following manner :— 
1. The terminal segment is funnel-shaped, with the anus in 
the middle of the bottom of the funnel. 
a. In nearly all the forms belonging here the margin of 
the funnel runs out into points or teeth, as in the genus 
Clymene, Sav., which Malmgren divides into the genera 
BRhodine, Nicomache, Axiothea, and Praxilla, according as the 
vertical plate is dilated or not into a free margin, and according 
to the number of the segments, whether bearing or wanting 
bristles. Grube would unite under Clymene all the forms 
which have a margined vertical plate, and would therefore refer 
to it the Aaiothee and Praxille, and transfer Nicomache to 
Leiocephalus. Of Rhodine the terminal segment is still un- 
known. The genus C/ymene does not occur at all amongst the 
northern ones exclusively described by Malmgren; Kinberg 
limits it to C. amphistoma, Sav., and gives as its character, 
according to Savigny, twenty-five (probably twenty-eight) seg- 
ments, and states that the three anteanal segments bear uncini, 
but the three segments following:the buccal segment only 
sete. But Savigny only indicates twenty-eight segments as 
not observed with certainty; and the specimens which the 
author found marked with this name in Ehrenberg’s collection 
from the Red Sea are only in fragments (long cephalic and 
caudal ends), and therefore leave us in the dark upon this 
point, although they agree with Savigny’s description so far 
that they may be regarded as identical ; they show no uncini, 
however, upon the anteanal segments; whilst on the three 
anterior segments referred to, a small spine exists beneath the 
setee which may easily have escaped Savigny; his figure at 
least shows the pit from which it issues. 
If we laid as great a weight as Malmgren upon the number 
of the segments, a new question would arise, namely, whether 
it is requisite to consider only the total number of segments, 
28* 
