184 BUSH 



not surprising that this name (jBispira)h.as been applied by subsequent 

 writers to various distinct forms. Qiiatrefages (1865) made a careful 

 study of all the then known genera and species, giving descriptions and 

 some figures, also a good analytical table. He, however, ignored the 

 name JBispira of Kroyer, and proposed the new genus Distylia for 

 forms having the branchial lobes equal and coiled spirally, describing 

 and figuring the (^Atnfhitrite) Sabella volutacornis Montagu (1804) 

 as the first species. Malmgren (1865-7) i^i^de the greatest advance 

 toward a possible correct interpretation of the northern forms by 

 introducing many new genera, giving excellent figures of the species, 

 especially of the setae, and referring most of Kroyer's new species to 

 those already described by Sars and others. Langerhans (1SS4) was 

 the first to attempt an analytical table based on the arrangement and 

 form of the sets. His knowledge of the genera, however, being de- 

 rived largely from published descriptions and figures, which often 

 proved inadequate, he cannot be followed with certainty. He makes 

 no mention of Distylia^ and places Bispira in his second grand divi- 

 sion, far removed from the related genus Spirographis^ which differs in 

 having the branchial lobes unequal and but one spirally coiled. His 

 conception of Bispira was probably suggested by Claparede, and is evi- 

 dently not that of Saint-Joseph (1894). The latter author has, by 

 studying the animals themselves, been able to correct many of the errors 

 hitherto overlooked. He follows Langerhans in making the arrange- 

 ment and form of the setee of great importance, but finds it necessary 

 to introduce several new genera for the reception of the various species. 

 In his analytical table there are some misconceptions which it seems 

 desirable to note. Under his second division the presence and position 

 of the eyes are made a distinguishing character, whereas it often happens 

 that species referable to the same genus may or may not possess them. 

 The genus Fabricia Blainville (1828), being said to have no collar, 

 is separated from Oria Qiiatrefages (1865), although Bourne (1883) 

 gives a good figure showing it to possess one. The two genera 

 Demonax and Pai-achonia of Kinberg are not mentioned. 



A special division was necessary for the genus Protulides ^ as it was 

 described by Webster (1884) as having avicular uncini and pennoned 

 setae in all the tori of the body. Numerous specimens from Bermuda, 

 recently studied, agree perfectly with Webster's description and figures 

 of the type species (T'. elegans) with the exception that they have avic- 

 ular uncini only in the abdominal tori. Webster states that his descrip- 

 tion is based largely on notes made on specimens from Beaufort, North 

 Carolina. Andrews in 1891, however, in studying specimens from 



