REPORT ON THE ANNELIDA. 
9 
he and Blainville ^ term the species Chloeia Jiava. Kinherg ^ separates the Chloeia Jlava 
of De Quatrefages as Thesmia Jlava, since it differs in the structure of the bristles ; and 
the remarks by Dr. Baird ® on the latter author’s species are important. Thus I agree with 
him in considering that Chloeia incerta, De Quatrefages, cannot be separated from Chloeia 
jlava, and that probably an error has crept into his description of the dorsal bristles 
of the latter. The observation of De Quatrefages that Chloeia furcigera is distinguished 
by having bifid bristles in both dorsal and ventral series only shows that the true nature 
of these organs in the group was misunderstood, since all are morphologically bifid. 
Finally, Prof. Grube describes the occurrence of the present form from Amboina, 
Salavatti, and Cape Verde, in the collection made by the German frigate “ Gazelle,” as 
well as in that made in the Philippines by Prof. Semper. The same author points out ^ 
that his Chloeia ceylonica ® is only a young form of Chloeia Jlava ; while the Chloeia pul- 
chella of Dr. Baird in the British Museum seems to be the same species. It was procured 
by H.M.S. “Herald” from Eaine Islet, North Australia. Chloeia Jlava appears, on the 
whole, to be an eastern type. 
The larger of the two Japanese examples is less than 3 inches, and therefore does 
not come up to the original specimen procured by Pallas ; and this difference in size 
would appear to correspond with the diminution in the number of segments. Pallas 
mentions forty segments, whereas M. de Quatrefages says from thirty -five to thirty-seven. 
In the present case the segments numbered res23ectively thirty-five and thirty-eight. 
The body is somewhat fusiform in outline, but the addition of the bristles gives it an 
ovoid appearance. The head is small, and dorsally almost wholly occupied by the 
tentacles and caruncle. Anteriorly are four tentacles, the inferior pair being pale in the 
preparation, widely separated at the base, and considerably shorter than the superior. 
The latter (which alone are mentioned by Pallas) arise close together in front of the 
caruncle, and are pale ventrally, but tinted of a rich madder-brown dorsally. Behind 
them is the large rugose caruncle, which consists of an elevated, doubly crenate crest and 
a wrinkled horizontal portion ; moreover, the middle of the crest is marked by an 
interrupted brown line. The organ, fixed to the first two segments, extends to the 
commencement of the fourth, and terminates in a free tapering extremity. Attached in 
a groove at the anterior end of the caruncle is the long brown median tentacle, which is 
about twice as long as the pair in front of it : like the rest it is a simple subulate 
process. In a line with the anterior margin of the latter, or in the smaller form 
decidedly in front, is a large jDigment-speck, and behind it a smaller, on each side, so that, 
as mentioned in the Mediterranean Chloeia,^ four is the correct number of eyes, and not 
two, as mentioned by Savigny and many of his successors. Kinberg ^ noticed the error, 
^ Diet. d. Sci. Nat., art. “Vers.” 2 Qfversigt k. Vetensk.-Akad. Forhandl., 1867, p. 86. 
® Journ. Linn. Soc. Land. (Zool.), vol. x. p. 230. ^ Annel. Fauna d. Philippinen, p. 10. 
® Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1874, p. 326. ® Trans. Zool. Soc. Land., vol. ix. p. 396. 
7 Freg. Eugen. Resa, pi. xi. fig. 1. 
(zoou CHALL. EXP. — PART XXXIV. — 1885.) 
LI 2 
