530 A. E. yeoTill — Marine ISfemerteans 



Dr. Girard gives, as the type of his proposed genus, the Amphi- 

 porus Neesii (Ersted, which is generally considered identical with 

 JBorlasia camillea Quatr., the type of Emplectonema and of Eune- 

 niertes. Dr. Girard, however, thinks that the Neesii of Mcintosh is 

 not identical with that of (Ersted. The differences referred to are 

 probably based on errors of observation and different states of con- 

 traction.* 



Neesia Groenlandica (CErsted) Gr'd, p. 287. 



This is too imperfectly known for identification. 



Neesia sanguinea Gr'd {Amphiporus Gr'd, 1853). Genus uncertain. 



It is not probable that this very imperfectly described Carolinian 

 species belongs to this generic group. Dr. Girard states that there 

 are no lateral cephalic slits and that the "orifice genital" (=mouth) 

 is very long and near the anterior extremity, whereas in the typical 

 species the mouth is small, round, and inconspicuous. This form 

 may, perhaps, be allied rather to Eupolia. The "bouche" (mpro- 

 boscis-pore) is described as small and terminal. The absence of 

 cephalic slits, if real, would indicate that it is a Paleonemertean, but 

 it has the general form of a Gerebratulas. 



R-enieria Gr'd (1853), p. 288rrCerebratulus. 



No characters sufficient to separate this type from Cerehratulus 

 are given. It is stated that the buccal orifice is almost terminal 

 and opens on the superior surface as in Vale7ici7iia. But this 

 remark doubtless refers to the proboscis-pore, which is on the inferior 

 surface in that genus. 



Kenieria rubra Gr'd, p. 285=:Cerebratulus ruber Ver,, vol. viii, p. 437. 

 Leodes striolenta Gr'd, p. 288 — Cerebratulus striolentus Yer., vol. viii, p. 436. 

 Meckelia fragilis Gr'd (1851), p. 290, (non Goodsir) = Cerebratulus Leidyi 

 Yer., vol. viii, p. 436. 



The description here given shows that my reference of this species 

 to G. lacteus is erroneous. The name having been previously used 

 for a foreign species of the same genus cannot be adopted for either 

 of the American forms. 



* Dr. Girard, in his generic description, p. 286, describes the terminal proboscis- 

 pore as the mouth (bouche), and the real mouth as the genital orifice (orifice genital). 

 The same errors are repeated under the species N. sanguineus. He also says that 

 there are no eyes, but in the Neesii of Mclnt. and in several allied species eyes are 

 numerous. 



