164 Leodicidoe from Fiji and Samoa. 



species of the same genus in the degree of distinctness of the first two somites that I 

 very much doubt whether there is anywhere a Leodicid with only one apodous somite. 

 While this assertion is perhaps going beyond the evidence in such a genus as Onuphis, 

 it seems to me obvious that these lateral and ventral markings in Oenone indicate 

 clearly a fusion of somites and that a classification which separates this genus from 

 others because of the (apparently) single apodous condition is erroneous. 



The appearance of the ventral prostomial surface varies with the amount of pro- 

 trusion of the palpal lobes, but it usually shows some longitudinal wrinklings. In 

 other respects there is nothing to be added to the descriptions already given by Fauvel 

 and others. 



The genera of the Lumbrinereinse with foUaceous dorsal cirri are somewhat confused , 

 The first genera and species were described by Savigny (1820, pp. 55, 56, plate 5, figs. 

 2 and 3) as Aglaura fulgida and Oenone lucida. The type of the latter species and 

 genus was afterward found to be an immature in- 

 dividual belonging to Aglaura fulgida, so that the 

 latter was regarded as the valid genus and species. 

 Ehlers (1864-1868, pp. 407, 408) showed that the 

 name Aglaura was preoccupied and proposed instead 

 the generic name Aglaurides. Savigny's original 

 description of Oenone might be interpreted to read 

 that the lack of tentacles was characteristic of the 

 genus, and Ehlers redefined Oenone as having no 

 tentacles and 1 apodous somite, while Aglaurides 

 has 3 tentacles and 2 apodous somites. In other 

 respects the two genera are alike. Fauvel (1917, pp. 

 240 to 257) accepts Aglaurides as the valid name, 

 arguing that since Oenone was founded on an evident 

 error it should disappear from the literature, and I Text-Figures 6.3 and 64. 



followed this procedure in a paper on the West j^^s of Oenone. 63, jaw of 

 Indian Leodicidae (Treadwell, 1921a, p. 116). In a Oenone fulgida from Samoa X 

 personal letter Dr. Chamberlin pointed out that 40; 64, jaw of Oenone diphyllidia 

 this procedure is contrary to the rules of nomen- ^''^"^ Tobago x 4o. 

 clature in that when Aglaura was discovered to 



have been preoccupied, Oenone, the oldest recorded synonym, should take its place. 

 The criticism is valid and I have used Oenone accordingly. 



Gravier (1900, p. 222) accepts Aglaurides as defined by Ehlers and retains Oenone 

 to include species without antennae or nuchal organs. Augener (1913, pp. 290, 291) 

 and Chamberlin (1919a, p. 326) use Oenone as the only valid genus for this group, 

 but neither wiiter seems to attach much importance to the tentacles and apparently 

 they confuse the tentacles with the nuchal organs. Chamberlin (1919a, p. 337) speaks 

 of "obscure antennal nodules — apparently subject to retraction like true antennal 

 organs," and Augener (p. 290), in speaking of the "sogenannten3Fuhler,"says"Diese 

 Fuhler sind ohne zweifel keine fuhlerartigen Anhange des Kopfes in gewohnlichen 

 Sinne sondern als Nackenorgane aufzufassen." Chamberlin (1919a, p. 335, plate 

 62, figs. 2 to 5) describes as Oenone ielura a species without tentacles, with peculiarly 

 shaped somites around the mouth, and with a maxillary apparatus quite unlike any 

 thus far figured in other species. Chamberlin states that the specimen had apparently 

 been dried, which would lead to a distortion of the soft parts, and its resemblance in 

 some details to Oenone fulgida would lead to a suspicion that the drying had been 

 responsible for the apparent lack of tentacles. Dr. Chamberlin kindly offered to 

 reexamine the specimen to be certain on this point, but it proved to be inaccessible 

 and so the matter can not be determined. So far as I know, this is the only recorded 

 case of an ^'Oenone" without tentacles, and since the presence or absence of tentacles 



