340 Prof. E. Claparéde on the Structure of the Annelida. 
conereis Edwardsii, I have described * a Eunicean from the shores 
of Normandy, which M. de Quatrefages refers to the genus 
Notocirrus}, distinguished from Lumbriconereis by the existence 
of a dorsal cirrus on each foot. Now the Annelide in question 
has the feet of a true Lumbriconereis ; and I have nowhere de- 
scribed or figured a dorsal cirrus. Here, also, the mistake of 
M. de Quatrefages arises from his having neglected the text, 
and attended only to the plate. In this, by a mistake of the 
the engraver, the foot is represented reversed; and the little 
terminal ligulet which occurs in all species of Lumbriconereis 
must, no doubt, have been taken, in this position, by the French 
zoologist for the dorsal cirrus of a Notocirrus. Nevertheless a 
little care ought to have led to the recognition of the reversal of 
position, especially by M. de Quatrefages, who has not allowed 
himself to be led into error by the plates of Audouin and Milne- 
Edwards, in which the feet of Lumbriconereis are also repre- 
sented reversed. 
I have cited these two examples because they concern myself ; 
but I have not been worse treated than many others, and I 
shall too frequently have to point out analogous mistakes in the 
course of this memoir. Nevertheless I repeat, with a little cir- 
cumspection, the ‘ Histoire des Annelés’ might be employed as 
a very useful guide. 
On the other hand, I cannot admit that the ‘ Histoire des 
Annelés’ represents the present state of science from an anato- 
mical and physiological point of view.. We owe to M. de Qua- 
trefages a multitude of important observations upon this subject. 
No one has studied the Annelida so persistently as he; no one, 
especially, has had under his hands so great a number of types, 
or studied them from such varied points of view. Elsewhere I 
have already paid, in the most formal manner, my tribute of 
admiration to these investigations{. Unfortunately, in the 
strength of his own numerous and profound researches, the author 
of the ‘ Histoire Naturelle des Annelés’ has too often forgotten 
that he had predecessors, and that some of his contemporaries 
were exploring with ardour the same field as himself. No doubt, 
in a work which is only an epitome of science, history cannot 
occupy a great space, and the author is obliged to place himself 
in an entirely objective point of view. But this is not what M, 
de Quatrefages has done, whose personality is always put for- 
ward, even in the narration of facts known twenty or thirty 
years before the first scientific efforts of the author. Hence 
* Beobacht. &c. p. 58. 
+ Hist. Nat. des Annelés, tome i. p. 376. 
t See ‘Glanures zootomiques parmi les Annélides de Port Vendres.’ 
Geneva, 1864. 
