226 EUPHROSYNINA. 



of Annelids, however, forms which in the north frequent the offshore are found between 

 tide-marks in the south. The number of the branchige differs slightly in. the two forms, 

 Sars giving five as the usual number. Further inquiry is thus necessary before the 

 absolute identity can be satisfactorily ascertained. 



Sub-family — E uphrosynina. 



Cephalic lobe compressed, bending downwards anteriorly to the ventral surface. 

 Dorsally a median tentacle, two eyes, and a trilobed caruncle, ventrally two eyes, two 

 short lateral tentacles, and a pair of adnate palpi in front of the mouth. 



Body oblong or ovate-oblong, segments few, feet crest-like, the dorsal and ventral 

 divisions being indistinct. Bristles of the dorsal region brittle and hollow, with simple 

 or bifid tips or hooks with jointed stems, accompanied by simple bristles. Branchias on 

 almost all the segments. Buccal apparatus large and complex; alimentary canal simple, 

 with only a trace of an anterior cascum. Anus dorsal. Two posterior appendages. The 

 nerve-cords are separate and comparatively large, and lie quite within the body- wall, — 

 the oblique muscles, which generally bound the longitudinal ventral muscles, in this 

 case decussating beneath them. 



When Savigny established the genus Euphrosyne in 1820, he placed it, as his 

 nineteenth genus, under his fourth family, the Amphinomse of Bruguiere ; and several 

 subsequent authors, such as Milne Edwards, Kinberg, Ehlers, and Be Quatrefages, have 

 adopted the same arrangement. 



Kinberg (1857) made the Euphrosynea the second family of his second group, Amphi- 

 nomea. A single genus and species only are mentioned. His description is — cephalic 

 lobe compressed ; neither antennas nor palpi; branchiae on many segments ; feet crest- 

 like and transverse. He subsequently (1867) made three groups of the Amphinomea, viz. 

 the Chloeia group, the Notopygos group, and the Amphinome group, and gave a brief 

 resume of the literature of each. He does not, in this paper, mention Euphrosyne or 

 Spinther. 



Grube included the genus Euphrosyne under the family Amphinomidse both in his 

 earlier and later publications (1851 — 1878), having followed Savigny and the preceding 

 authors in this respect. It is placed under his primary division (tribe) Eapacia. 



Ehlers 1 likewise adopted Savigny's classification, placing all those with the dorsal 

 caruncle under this group (Amphinomea). He 3 gives an account of a fossil form 

 (Meringosoma curtum) from the lithographic slate of Solenhofen which approaches 

 Euphrosyne in character. In his recent publication ('Florida Anneliden/ 1887) be 

 adheres to this arrangement. Amongst other features he noticed the hollow nature of 

 the bristles. 



The Euphrosynidas in the classification of De Quatrefages 3 were grouped under the 



1 'Borstenwurmer/ 1864. 



2 ' Cassel/ 1869, p. 161, pi. xxxvi, f. 3. 



3 'Armeies/ 1865. 



