22 NEPHTHYS HOMBEKGIL 



7 and 8) are distinguished by the great development of the inferior lamella. Dorsally 

 the lamella agrees very closely with that of N. Hombergii. The spinigerous lobe shows no 

 boss or process below the spine as in the Neapolitan form, but this feature is absent in 

 various examples both from the Mediterranean and elsewhere. The free flaps from the 

 fillet — superiorly and inferiority — are somewhat less developed than in the ordinary 

 examples, some having a tendency to diminution. The dorsal cirrus is shorter and less 

 filiform, but the branchia is similar. The inferior division again presents a much larger 

 foliaceous lamella, forming a thin fan which often overlaps the adjoining edge of the 

 upper lobe. The greater part of the lamella is occupied by arborescent blood-vessels — 

 leaving a narrow marginal belt of translucent tissue. The brownish capillary bristles 

 are in two groups in each division of the foot, the upper division having the upper group 

 shorter, while in the ventral division the lower is the shorter. They and the barred 

 forms appear to correspond with those of N. Hombergii, though they are somewhat more 

 slender. Posteriorly all the processes of the foot are diminished, especially the branchia 

 and the inferior lamella. 



It is interesting that this vascular modification of the inferior lamella occurs not 

 infrequently in examples from Montrose, and yet has not been found elsewhere than in 

 the Mediterranean. 



In the intestine of an example from Montrose were muddy sand, bristles, and shreds 

 of tissue of its prey (other Annelids). 



In all probability Montagu's Plate LXIX 1 represents this form. The branchia is 

 apparently turned outward. 



If Cuvier's species as described by Savigny (1820) be the common form then the 

 title JV". Hombergii, Cuv., has the priority. Savigny's remarks are by no means dis- 

 tinctive, since he does not indicate the characters of the ventral division of the foot with 

 sufficient precision in contrast with the dorsal. As French authors, however, identify 

 Cuvier's specimens with this species it is well to accept it. Besides, this decision is 

 substantiated by the adoption of the same title by Lamarck in 1818. 



The early description and figure of Delle Chiaje (1825) give no diagnostic features 

 for the species, nor does his later publication (' Descrizione ') add further information. 

 G-rube, however, had in the meantime found the same form in the Adriatic and 

 Mediterranean, as Delle Chiaje himself notes, and though he separated it from Nephthys 

 Hombergii, Aud. and Ed., it would appear, and as Claparede considered, that it refers 

 to that (the present) species. Grube, indeed, subsequently associated it with (Ersted's 

 N. assimilis. It would have been difficult to connect Delle Chiaje's species with that 

 of Milne Edwards' if the workers at Naples had not satisfied themselves, for he describes 

 and figures two very distinct eyes which are not often seen in the British representatives, 

 and the presence of two caudal cirri in the figure is another discrepancy. 



Audouin and Milne Edwards (1834) give a vivid description of the movements of 

 this species and its powers of burrowing in the sand. They allude also to its use as bait 

 by the fishermen. 



De Quatrefages (1865) separated the K Hombergii of Audouin and Milne Edwards' 



1 MS. drawings by Miss Dorville, 1808, Library Linnean Society. 



