1917] Essenbrrg: Some Species of Aphroditielae 413 



characteristic to the genus. The three series of neurosetae consist of 

 two setae in the dorsal series, three in the middle series, and five in 

 the ventral series. Thej- are similar in shape and structure, except 

 for the difference in size (pi. 35, fig. 57, 60, 63). The neurosetae of 

 the second parapodium (pi. 35, figs. 52, 53) are decorated with 

 spinous projections ending bluntly or in a spiral twist. The neuro- 

 setae of the caudal parapodia (pi. 35, fig. 54) are covered with spiny 

 hooks. 



The dorsal setae are arranged in two rows inserted at different 

 angles. Each row consists of ten or eleven setae, which pierce the 

 layer of felt fibres, extending dorsad. The tips of the notosetae are 

 fine and brittle, ending in an abruptly bent hook (pi. 35, fig. 56). The 

 fibers arise as usual in three tufts, the dorsal, intermediate, and 

 ventral. The felt fibers arise in tufts immediately above the dorsal 

 notopodial setae on elytroferous segments only. A smaller tuft arises 

 between the two facicles of setae on all segments. The lateral tufts 

 of fibres arise below the notopodial setae. On the elytroferous seg- 

 ments the dorsal bundle of fibers, which furnishes the greater part of 

 the dorsal felt, is lacking. The lateral fibers are covered with fine 

 hairs and terminate in a hook (pi. 35, fig. 62). 



The notocirri are about four times the length of the neuroeirri. 

 The latter are fusiform and reach to the base of the second row of 

 the neuropodial setae. 



Occurrence. — There is only cue specimen, the type. It was taken 

 off San Diego, in September, 1898, by Professor S. J. Holmes, from 

 the holdfasts of kelp. 



6. Aphrodita raripillata, sp. nov. 



PI. 36, figs. 64-76; pi. 37, figs. 85-86 

 Comparisons. — The description of this species is based on three 

 examples which are in the Zoological Museum of the University of 

 California. Two of these were labeled, probably by Treadwell (1914), 

 Aphrodita parva. while the third specimen was labeled Aphrodita 

 negligens. The characteristics of the latter species have been pre- 

 viously discussed in this paper in comparison with other species. It 

 is unnecessary, therefore, to repeat the description here. It may be 

 said, however, that observation shows at once that the specimens here 

 described are neither A. parva nor A. negligens, as they differ from 

 both in the shape of the body, which is more slender, with the dorsum 



