1904,] POLYCH^TA OP THE MALDIVE ARCHIPELAGO. 271 



teeth borne by the uncini differ slightly, but are also variable. 

 Uncini from the hind body of G. variopedatus which Marenzeller 

 examined bore 11 or 12 teeth, whereas in my specimens of the 

 same species the corresponding Lincini, though larger, bear but 

 8 or 9, variation thus affecting not only the uncini of different 

 parapodia but those of entire individuals. 



Slight differences in the form of the long setae are not a certain 

 distinction between species. Their broad ends are more properly 

 compared to leaves than to spear-heads, for they are thin and 

 flexible and would yield to, not pierce, the surface of the wall of 

 the tube. Their appearance may therefore be altered during 

 examination by pressure and bending. 



Only well-marked differences in the setae are admissible there- 

 fore as a specific distinction, and Marenzeller's C. cautus would be 

 regarded, so far as the description given is concerned, as a variety 

 of C. variopedatus but for its peculiar tube, which has three or 

 four narrow openings at either end, instead of the simple ending 

 of the tube of G. variojjedatus. As this peculiarity was found in 

 the half-dozen or so specimens examined, I conckide that we have 

 here a true species whose tube only is as yet described. 



Joyeux-Laffuie recognises the following exotic species : — 



1. G. afer Quatref. 1 t. ^^ -, c , i i 



o /-/ , 7- /-v£ r Described from tubes alone. 



I. o. austraks (^rg. J 



3. G. capeusis Stimpson. 



4. G. hamatus Schmarda. 



5. G. miacropus Schm, 



6. G. pergamentaceus Qxiv. 



Marenzeller adds to these :— 



7. G. appendicidatus Grube, 



8. G. luteus Stimpson, 



9. G. antarcticus Kbg., 



and remarks that 1, 3, and 4, and 2, 5, and 8 are evidently the 

 same species, and that G. antarcticus = G. variopedatus, a fact 

 lately verified by Ehlers in the ' Magalhaensischen Sammelreise.' 

 De St. Joseph gives G. pergamentaceus as a synonym of G. vario- 

 j)edatus *. American authors, however, continue to use the 

 former name. 



We obtain thus a much shortened list as follows : — 



1. G. afer-capensis-hamatus. 



2. G. austraUs-luteus-macropKjS. 



3. G. appendictdattis. 



4. G. cautus. 



5. G. variopedatus. 



Apparently, in former days, zoologists considered a remote 

 locality a complete justification for describing a specimen as new 

 without any comparison of its structure with that of already 

 known species. For instance, Schmarda describes together 



* A recent examination of a specimen from Woods Holl, Mass., U.S.A., pives 

 indications that tiiis may be a distinct variety or species. See note on p. 276. 



