[9.0] 
THEEL, NORTHERN AND ARTIC INVERTEBRATES. I. SIPUNCULIDS. 
are incomplete and unsatisfactory in a high degree, and that even in some cases only 
names are given, without any diagnosis. From this cireumstance and from the fact 
that no opportunity was ever found to examine a single type described or mentioned 
by the Norwegian authors, misapprehensions in the identifying of the species were 
inevitable. One of my own papers from that period, "Études sur les Géphyriens 
inermes des mers de la Scandinavie, du Spitzberg et du Groönland'', proves the truth 
of what has been said. Not until 1875, that is to say the year when my own pa- 
pers on the Gephyrea were printed, did the authors named present their "Bidrag til 
de norske Gephyreers Naturhistorie'', a more complete, though but preliminary, ac- 
count of the northern species of Gephyrea and their anatomical structure. Not until 
two years later, in 1877, was their mainwork published in the "Fauna littoralis Nor- 
vegiea, viz.: "A Contribution to the Natural History of the Norwegian Gephyre&". 
Seeing that later investigators, e. g. SELENKA, have paid hardly any considera- 
tion to my own researches of 1875 upon the anatomy of these animals, and almost 
exclusively cite those of KOREN and DANIELSSEN, it may not be out of place to end- 
eavour to ascertain the cause of this fact in a foot-note and to inquire whether they 
were justified in so doing. A glance at the list of publications given above, shows 
that I have placed my own first two papers in front of that preliminary one of 
KOREN and DANIELSSEN ' 
1 It is a fact that four different papers on the Gephyrea were published in the same year, 1875. 
This being the case, it remains to find an explanation as to why it has happened that among these four pa- 
pers one alone — the preliminary one of KOREN and DANIELSSEN —- has been consistently cited as the ear- 
liest, and that as early as 1883 SELENKA appears to have totally forgotten the existence of my two papers 
on the anatomy of Phascolion strombi. The fact of the matter must be that SELENKA only took notice of 
the contents of the main work of the two Norwegian investigators, which was printed in 1877 in the »Fauna 
littoralis Norvegie» and which was written both in Norwegian and English and contained a brief reference 
to the earlier paper of 1875. But is it really true that this earlier paper of KOREN and DANIELSSEN Was 
printed before my own papers of the same year — or at least before two of them? TI am unable to believe 
it and for the following reasons: They say, it is true, in a foot-note: »Sent to the Magazin for Naturviden- 
skaberne in the middle of January 1875», but this is not a sufficient proof of their right to claine priority. 
My »Recherches sur le Phascolion strombi (Mont.)» were accepted for publication by the Swedish Royal 
Academy of Science on the 13!" of January 1875, but neither is that conelusive evidence. When were the 
papers printed? That is the real question to be answered, before the rival claims to priority can be adjudicated. 
The preliminary paper by KOREN and DANIELSSEN was published in the Vol. XXT of the »Nyt Ma- 
gazin for Naturvidenskaberne (1875)», a journal which has a continuous pagination, and which should appear 
in four fascicles annually. During the year 1875, however, time was not found to issue more than three 
fascicles, the fourth not being printed till the next year. Hence the complete volume bears the date 1876. 
The consequence of this retardation was, that only 270 pages were printed in 1875. The pages of the paper 
by KOREN and DANIELSSEN are numbered 108 to 138, whence it follows that their investigations were made 
public at the very earliest in the middle of 1875. Afterwards excerpts were published with a new pagina- 
tion, and in a foot-note they added some remarks, subsceribed »Bergen in January». 
My »Recherches sur le Phascolion strombi» were accepted for publication by the Royal Academy of 
Science on the 13'" of January 1875 and were printed the same year, though very likely not until the au- 
tumn; whether they appeared at an earlier or later date than the paper by KOREN and DANIELSSEN must be 
left undecided. However, in anticipation of some delay, a short summary of the contents was accepted for 
publication by the Academy on the 10!" of February, and immediately handed over to the printing- -office, so 
that it was ready for distribution at the end of the same month and could be cited by me in my »Ktudes 
sur les Géphyriens inermes des Mers de la Scandinavie, du Spitzberg et du Groönland», accepted for publica- 
tion by the Academy on the 10! of March and printed in the course of that spring. 
The explanation given above has not been made for the purpose of bringing into disrepute the achieve- 
ments of the two revered, since deceased, Norwegian invyestigators, nor in order to establish my right of 
