TEREBELLIDS. 103 



and found only two Terebellids, viz., Lanice conchilega and Loimia medusa, possessing 

 otocysts. 



An account of the circulatory and digestive systems in several species was given by 

 Wiren (1885), accompanied by excellent figures. 



Goodrich 1 (1900) observes that in the Terebellidse the nephridium opens internally, 

 and that the genital funnel becomes connected with the nephrostome and loses its 

 primitive opening to the exterior. He considers these organs in this group as coelomo- 

 ducts. 



Cunningham 2 found a median neural canal in Lanice conchilega, but none in Amphitrite 

 Johnstoni or Terebellides stroemi. 



Ssolowiew 3 (1899) gave an account of the Terebellids of the White Sea, the species 

 on the whole resembling the Norwegian, though he adds Solowetia Malmgreni, a new 

 genus and species, and Amphitrite birulai, a new species, and makes various changes in 

 the synonymy. His figures, though fairly accurate in most cases, are somewhat deficient 

 in finish. He places the Terebellids under nine heads, founding the separation of the 

 groups chiefly on the structure of the cephalic lobe, that of the branchiae, and on the 

 arrangement and structure of the bristles and hooks, the genera having the following 

 order : Polycirrus, Terebellides, Trichobranchus, Artacama, Solowetia, Amphitrite, Laphania, 

 Pista. 



Wollebsek (1912) makes six groups of the Terebellidae, the first containing Hauchiella 

 and Lysilla ; the second, Amoea ; the third, Terebellides and Trichobranchus; the fourth, 

 Ereutho, Polycirrus, Leucariste, Streblosoma, Grymoea and Thelepus : the fifth, Leoena, 

 Artacama, Scione, Nicolea, Terebella, Pista, Amphitrite and Lanice; whilst the sixth 

 includes only Laphania, with, perhaps, Soloivetia near it. No exception can be taken to 

 the first group, both being devoid of hooks, yet the one genus has and the other has not 

 bristles. The second group is sharply separated from those in front and behind. The 

 third group is a natural one. The fourth might well be subdivided and the same may be 

 said of the fifth. Laphania, which constitutes the sixth group, does not appear to require 

 isolation. 



Hessle 4 (1917) replaces Malmgren's classification of the Terebellids, which has been 

 in use for fifty years, by one of his own in which the nephridia play a prominent part, but 

 the results do not seem to be commensurate with the trouble, and the grouping of the 

 genera, e. g. Amphitrite and Artacama, is in some cases unsatisfactory. Most of the 

 characters are of old standing, but the introduction of the nephridia in the series is new. 

 His first division has the anterior nephridia smaller than the posterior, or absent, and here 

 fall Pista, Lanicides, Lanice, Loimia, Nicolea and Polymnia, Neo- amphitrite, Neoleprsea, 

 Terebella, Amphitrite and Artacama. He thus more or less reverses the arrangement of 

 Malmgren, and the foregoing representatives differ materially amongst themselves as to 

 the details of nephridial arrangement, whilst, as regards the old character of bearing 

 branchise, they all agree. They certainly could all be recognised and separated without 



1 ' Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci./ vol. xliii, n.s., p, 740. 



2 Ibid., vol. xxviii, p. 264. 



3 ' Aimuaire Musee Zool. de Acad. Imp. des Sc. de St. Pefcersbourg/ t. iv, p. 179, Taf. x — xiii. 



4 ' Zool. Bidrag Uppsala/ No. 5, pp. 149—151. 



