The Structure of the Annelids. 267 



based upon anatomy, and an enumeration of synonyms. In 

 referring to the writings of others, M. Claparede states that 

 M. Quatrefages has " often consulted plates without taking 

 the trouble to read the corresponding text." One instance of 

 this occurs in a mis-description which he gives of Claparede's 

 genus Pygaspio, and other instances are given. While admitting 

 that M. Quatrefages's work may be read with advantage, 

 M. Claparede cannot admit that it represents the present state 

 of science, as regards the anatomy and physiology of worms. 

 " Unfortunately, notwithstanding his numerous and profound 

 researches, the author of the ' Histoire Naturelle des Anneles" 

 has too often forgotten that he had predecessors, and that con- 

 temporaries were exploring the same ground with an ardour 

 equal to his own." The " personality of M. Quatrefages" — 

 the ridiculous egotism in fact, so noticeable in his works — "is 

 always foremost, even in the narration of facts known twenty 

 or thirty years before his own scientific debut. . . . How many 

 errors would have been avoided if the author had conscientiously 

 studied the works of Pathke, Delia Chiaje, Grrube, and others ; 

 if he had taken into account the studies of histologists, such as 

 Kolliker, Leydig, etc., he would not then, as he has sometimes 

 done — in the structure of the branchise, for example — have 

 made science retrograde to the epoch of Pallas." " Why did 

 M. Quatrefages, who is so well acquainted with Annelids, 

 describe genera and species from specimens preserved in 

 alcohol in the Paris Museum ? He must know the uselessness 

 of such a course, and that Annelids can only be properly studied 

 at the sea-side with the help of living specimens. To 

 describe as he has done, alcoholic varieties, is to embarrass 

 science with a caput mortuum, which it will take years to get 

 rid of." 



" Regions of the Body and. Appendages. After much discus- 

 sion concerning the value of the external portions of the 

 bodies of Annelids, most recent authors have adopted the no- 

 menclature of M . Grube, who gives the name of buccal segment 

 to the segment carrying the mouth, and that of cephalic lobe 



(Prcestomium, Huxley) to all that is in advance of it 



M. Quatrefages, taking up opinions previously advanced by 

 Eathke, considers the cephalic lobe and the buccal segment as 

 together forming the head, but he does not adhere strongly to 

 this view, as he most often gives the name head to the cephalic 

 segment only/'' 



" He has tried to introduce a simplification in the nomen- 

 clature of the appendages of the cephalic region, by giving the 

 name of antennae to all the appendages springing from the 

 cephalic lobe, that of tentacles to those of the buccal segment, 

 and that of tentacular cirrhi to those of the first feet, when 



