Gully Marine Laloralcri/, S'f. AnJrewn. 127 



of the scries, uliich follows the satue backward .«lopc as tiie 

 others, to represent tliein, though this is unlikely. He 

 (leserilu's and figures u bnd, and compares it with budding 

 in the Turbellarians and Niiidie. On the whole, there are 

 no reliable grounds for separating this form from /'. iwj/le.va. 

 Dalyell'*^ (1853) gave a grapliie account of the external 

 features of the annelid and its mass of tubes, which, be 

 correctly stated, was "penetrated by numerous dccj) cavities 

 of indeterminable size and form/' He also found the 

 greyisli annelids of unequal size, but lie did not notice 

 buds. 



Huxley t in 18");j furnished a careful account of the 

 soutiiern type which he termed Protula dysteri, its distin- 

 guishing features being its "fissiparous multiplication^' and 

 its hernia jihrodite condition. He described the branchiie 

 and their green blood-vessels; the alimentary canal with its 

 crop, stomach, and intestine ; the " vascular " system, which 

 lie did not consider equivalent to that of higher forms, the 

 ccelomic fluid representing it ; the nervous system, repro- 

 ductive elements, setie, and uncinij and concluded by a 

 digest on fissiparous multiplication. He describes a ciliated 

 canal running along the ventral surface of the intestine and 

 apparently opening at the anus, but such j)robably was a 

 misapprehension. He did not discriminate the diffcreuces 

 in the structure and distribution of the bristles, yet the 

 general account is worthy of the distinguished author, who, 

 however, considered in 18G5 that his form was probably 

 identical with the northern type which had previously been 

 described by Sars. 



Keferstein J (18C2) found the same form at St. Vaast 

 with free-swimming young. His figures of the bristle and 

 hcoks are insuflieieut for identification, though they apply 

 to the common form. 



Cliiparede § in 1863 i)rocured Protula ihj^ttri off the shores 

 of France, and gave a detailed description of it. He likens 

 the expanded branchial ajq aratus ol the annelid to the 

 lophoj liore of a Polyzoon. His examj)les had two eyes and 

 occasionally other i)lack specks. In the main his account 

 agrees with that of Huxley, though he ])oinfs out and figures 

 the enlargements at the tips of the branchial fihiiiicnts not 

 mentioned In' the English author. These enlargements, 



• IVwers ('rent. ii. p. i'/JO, pi. Axxiv. fips. 1-6. 

 t Kdiii. New riiilof. .lour. vol. i. n. 8. p. 113, pi. i. fijrs. 111. 

 I '/* itsch. f. w. Zool. WA. xii. p. 1 L'8, pi. .\i. tij;s. '2'.\ k 24 (lM5l'). 

 \ Ik'cbach. Auat. u. Eiitwicklimtr!*. Wirb. Tliiere, p. ul, Tat". .\v. 

 figs. lU 1'2. 



