GJmtapoda of the Virginian Coast. 203 



bottoms." The rocks were a thin layer of dead shells, 

 that had been washed into the deeper parts of the channels 

 and remained there. These shells had been very tho- 

 roughly excavated by a species of sponge and other 

 boring animals, and in the galleries thus formed most of 

 the smaller species of annelids were found. 



The results of the work, so far as concerns the annelids 

 may be summarized as follows: 



I^"umber of Families, represented, - - - 23 



" Genera, 49 



*' Species, 69 



The number of families would by many be regarded as 

 too small, as I have followed Grube and Ehlers, rather than 

 Kinberg and Malmgren in regard to family limitations ; 

 using Eunicidse, for example, to include Marphysa, Lum- 

 briconereis and Staurocephalus, each of which has been 

 referred (and perhaps properly) to a distinct family. In 

 the generic classification, on the other hand, I have usually 

 followed what may be called the modern arrangement. 

 Nevertheless it seems very probable that the views of Prof. 

 Grube as to the proper limitations of the genera of seti- 

 gerous annelids are correct, and will ultimately prevail. 

 Of the genera adopted, four are new and six have not pre- 

 viously been reported from our coast. Twenty-seven of 

 the species are believed to be new, besides four previously 

 described, but new to our coast. 



I am under obligations to Prof. Verrill both for advice 

 and for the use of specimens. 



My thanks are also due to Mr. J. A. Lintner of the N. 

 Y. State Museum of Katural History, who has used his 

 wide knowledge and experience to supplement my defi- 

 ciences both in knowledge^and^experience, in the kindest 

 and pleasantest manner possible. 



T. R. Featherstonhaugh, M. D., of Schenectady, N. Y., 



