Lumbricm pellmidus. — Polynoe imhricata. 421 



opposite, functions, what do we gain by the use of a theoretical lan- 

 guage ? In the present genus there are four tentacular filaments on each 

 side, two short, and two about twice as long, and the simple enunciation 

 of the fact appears to me vastly preferable to the language of Savigny 

 and Lamarck. 



In my " Contribution," printed in the 11th number of the Zoological 

 Journal, there are some errors, which I take this opportunity to correct^ 



Vol. in. p. 322, line 10, for ' springs' read ' spines or prickles.' 



In the description of Campontia eruciformis (Vol. III. p. 325.) the 

 term proleg is misapplied ; they are true feet, similar to the prolegs of 

 caterpillars in shape and structure. It would have been more correct 

 also, had I compared the animal itself to the larva of some dipterous 

 flies, for since the paper was written, I have observed two of these in 

 ditches, which I think it would be difficult to separate generically from 

 the Campontia, so close is the resemblance, and yet it is obvious that 

 there can be no true affinity between them. 



The Lumbricus pellucidus. Vol. III. p. 327, I am now incHned to be- 

 lieve, is the larva of an insect ; and for having thus obtruded on the sci- 

 ence a false species, my apology m\ist be, that at the time I believed it 

 to be a true one. The Lumb. vermicularis of Miiller I have lately ascer- 

 tained to be common in this neighbourhood. 



In the specific character of Polynoe imbricata. Vol. III. p. 332, after 

 " brevissimis," insert " velatis." I have met with a pretty variety, in 

 which the scales were of a pale uniform colour, surrounded with a nar- 

 row black border. 



f^To be continued. J 



