166 Leodicidce from Fiji and Samoa. 



berlin and others have noted, is synonymous with Halla, which has precedence, if 

 Halla is a vaHd genus. 



Subfamily DORVILLEIN^. 



The characteristic genus of this family was named Staurocephalua by Grube (1855, 

 p. 97), but Verrill (1900, pp. 647, 648) showed that the name was preoccupied and 

 renamed it Stanronereis, making the subfamily Stauronereinse. Chamberlin (1919a, 

 pp. 338, 339) showed that Stauronereis was preoccupied by Dorvillea, given by Parfitt 

 (1866, pp. 113, 114, with 5 figures) to a new genus Dorvillea. The name of the prin- 

 cipal genus should then be Dorvillea and the subfamily renamed accordingly. 



Chamberlin is in error in referring to a swarming like that of Palolo in Dorvillea. 

 Mayer (1902) corrected an error in an earlier paper and pointed out that this swarming 

 species is Leodice fucata Ehlers. 



Genus DORVILLEA Parfitt. 

 Parfitt, E, 1866, Zoologist, 2d series, pp. 113, 114. 



Prostomium rounded, pentagonal or quadrangular, with two more or less articulated 

 tentacles and elongated palps which may be spirally contorted. Body with relatively 

 few somites, parapodia with dorsal and ventral cirri but without gills. Four anal cirri. 

 Maxilla of 2 or more rows of toothed plates on either side, the rows all united at the 

 base but diverging in a V-shape. Mandible bifurcated, with slender shafts, the margin 

 often prolonged laterally into rows of plates. 



Dorvillea australiensis Mcintosh. 



Plate 8, figures 1 to 7; text-figures 65 to 68. 



Staurocephahis australieims Mcintosh, 1885, pp. 232, 233, pi. 36, fig. 6; pi. 17a, figs. 



9 and 10. 

 Staurocephalvs australiensis Treadwell, 1906, p. 1173, figs. 63 to 66. 



Dorvillea (Staurocephahis) atistraliensis was described by Mcintosh from a posterior 

 fragment of a single individual. Treadwell identified with this a species from Hawaii 

 and figured the prostomium with appendages in which the tentacles are shown as 

 unsegmented. Augener (1913, pp. 293-296) and Benham (1915, pp. 209-212, plates 

 41, figs. 58 to 66) described specimens of this genus from the Australian region as S. 

 australiensis, though all of the tentacles in their specimens had strongly articulated 

 tentacles. I have reexamined the Hawaiian specimen (now No. 5463 in the U. S. 

 National Museum) and find that the tentacles certainly are not strongly articulated, 

 though they show a jointing toward the end. 



The only structures in which direct comparison is possible between Mcintosh's 

 and Benham's specimens are in the parapodia and setse. The difference between the 

 two figures of the parapodia (Benham, plate 41, fig. 62, and Mcintosh, plate 36, fig. 6) 

 might be due to imperfect preservation of the material or to the fact that they represent 

 parapodia from different regions of the body, but this explanation does not hold for 

 the setse. Benham figures the terminal joints of the compound setae as each having 

 a stout subapical tooth and a denticulated margin to the hood, and he describes the 

 simple setae as "long, curved, capilliform" with fine serrations along the upper convex 

 margin, while in Mcintosh's figures (plate 17a, figs. 9, 10) the terminal joint of the 

 compound seta has a small subapical tooth and no serration along the margin of the 

 hood. The simple seta has a serrated edge and terminates in a bifid extremity. 



In the form of the setal lobes and setse Benham's specimens differ from the Hawaiian 

 and the Sanioan species. He states that the mandibles are without denticulations, 

 while in the Samoan specimens they are denticulated (plate 8, fig. 7). The form of 

 the paragnaths is quite unlike in the two cases, Augener's specimens from Australia 

 had on the parapodia "am Ende 3 blatt-formige Lippen-cine vordere obere und eine 



