NEMERTEANS Il5 



been placed in my hands, so there can be no doubt as to the 

 identity of these forms. They are : 



1. Carinella dinema Coe = C. sexlincata Griffin. 



2. C. spectosa Coe C. rubra Griffin. 



3. Carinoma griffini Coe = C. mutabilis Griffin. 



4. Amfhiporus leuciodus Coe = A. imparisptnosus Griffin. 



5. A. exilis Coe = A. formidabilis Griffin. 



Griffin's paper includes twelve named species besides two 

 forms which are not designated by specific names. The geo- 

 graphical distribution of these is as follows : 



1. Carinella scxlineata Griffin. Puget Sound ; Sitka, Alaska. 



2. C. rubra Griffin. Puget Sound; Sitka, Alaska. 



3. Carinoma mutabilis Griffin. Puget Sound ; Strait of Juan 

 de Fuca. Varieties : argillina^ in hard blue clay ; vasculosa, in 

 sand between tides. 



4. Emplcctonema viride Stimpson = E. gracile (Johnston) 

 Verrill. Southern Alaska ; Puget Sound. 



5. E. violaccum Griffin, (non Burger) = E. burgeri Coe. 

 This form, which Griffin considers identical with Burger's 

 species from the coast of Chile, 1 was found on piles at Port 

 Townsend, Puget Sound. Griffin's description is substantially 

 as follows : Body extremely flattened, ribbon-like ; head rounded 

 in front, directly continuous with body ; eyes numerous. Color 

 somewhat variable, with fairly constant pattern on dorsal surface 

 which is densely flecked with purple or brown upon a pale yel- 

 lowish brown ground color ; ventral surface yellowish white. 

 Length probably 50 cm., although it was difficult of measurement 

 because the body remained coiled up in tangled knots in an enor- 

 mous amount of slime which the worm secretes. These char- 

 acters agree in the main with the brownish variety of E. burgeri^ 

 but differ widely from Burger's E. violaccum^ which is dark 

 brownish violet above and pale rose-violet on ventral surface 

 even after preservation. Griffin considers the internal anatomy 

 to agree * more or less closely ' with Btirger's E. violaccum. 

 My own preparations, however, prove conclusively that the two 

 species are specifically distinct, for they differ decidedly in the 

 only really specific anatomical character which Burger gives ; 



*Zool. Jahrb., Abth. d. Syst., DC, p. 272, 1896. 



