Clare Island Survey — Archiannelida and Polychaeta. 47 77 



This species is clearly identical with the Eteone foliosa Quat., described 

 by de St.-Joseph (torn. cit.). I have examined specimens in the Paris 

 Museum, named by him, and there is no doubt of the identity. I am unable 

 to distinguish between the E. pusilla and E. spetzbergensis as described and 

 figured by Malmgren and Mcintosh. Both species agree in the shape of 

 the feet, anal cirri, and setae. The E. caeca of Ehlers appears to be a young 

 specimen of this species, with which it agrees in the shape of the head, absence 

 of setae on the second segment, and the condition of the feet and setae. No 

 information is given as to the anal cirri ; and the absence of eyes in the 

 preserved specimen has no significance. E. caeca was obtained near Galway, 

 not far from the district where the present specimens were found. 



The correct name for this species seems to be doubtful. Michaelsen 

 (1896, p. 37) has pointed out that the E. pusilla of Malmgren differs in 

 several points from the E. pusilla of Oersted, and gave the name E. Miulm- 

 greni to Malmgren's species. The name E. foliosa given by Quatrefages in 

 1865 has, however, clearly a better claim; and as it has been adequately 

 described by de St.-Joseph, I have adopted it here. The only other alternative 

 is the E. spetzbergensis of Malmgren, published in 1865, the same year as 

 Quatrefages published his description of E. foliosa ; and the identity of the 

 two species being still doubtful, E. foliosa seems to have the stronger 

 claim. 



A specimen in the Irish National Museum, from Norway, labelled 

 Eteone fucata Sars, is identical with E. foliosa. The species of Sars, however, 

 judging from his description and figures (1873, p. 26, PI. xv, figs. 1-6), is 

 quite distinct, being closely related to, if not identical with, Eteone picta 

 Quat. 



Doubtless a number of other species of Eteone are synonymous with 

 E. foliosa ; and a revision of the species found in the North Atlantic, based on 

 the large amount of material now accumulated, is desirable. Too much 

 attention has been paid to small variations in the shape of the head, feet, 

 and setae, and too little attention given to really valuable characters, such 

 as the condition of the second segment, and the shape of the anal cirri. 

 Only in the case of E. foliosa and E. caeca is any information given as to the 

 presence or absence of setae on the second segment. The various figures 

 given by Malmgren, Theel, Mcintosh, and other observers, of what is supposed 

 to be the same species, afford no evidence for thinking that their identifi- 

 cations are reliable or final. 



Two small specimens dredged in 5-^-11 fms. in Clew Bay, and one 

 specimen dredged in 7-8 fms. in Blacksod Bay, seemed at first to belong 

 to a new species, but further consideration has led me to believe that they 



