ANNELIDA. 
G29 
name Eunice was given lay Cuvier to E. gigantea (Cuv. R6g. An. ii. 525, new 
ed. iii. 199) ; so tliis name could not possibly be applied to any other group 
in the family than that to which Eunice gigantea belongs, Kinberg lately^ 
instituted a new generic name, Erijjhyle, for a group in which he would in- 
clude Eunice gigantea (Cuv.), and then he employs the name Eunice (Cuv.) 
in a sense for which Savigny’s old name Leodice in the strict sense would not 
only have been applicable but correct; so that Kiiiberg's name Eriphyle 
should, as simply synonymous with Einicc (Cuv.), disappear, and the name 
Leodice, Sav., in its restricted sense ought to be employed for the group to 
which Kinberg applies the name Eunice ; for X. antcnnata, Sav. (l)escr. d. 
l’Egypto,xxi. p. 380), which ought to be regarded as the type of Leodice (Sav.), 
belongs to Kinberg’s genus Eunice, 
Savigny indeed separates from the true Leodicoe simplices those species 
which are destitute of tentacular cirri. (as Leodicae marphysae), and describes, 
from a dead specimen, Jjeodicc opalina, Sav. (^ — Nereis sangumea, Mont.), as 
belonging to this latter section ; so that this species is thus the type of the 
genus Marphysa (Sav.), Qfg., with which Kinberg’s new genus Nauphanta, 
judging from the description, quite corresponds. 
Grubb describes briefly the following as new species : — Eunice purpurea, 
Gr. 1. c, p. G8, quite different from E. violacea ; E. longicornis, Gr. 1. c, p. 68, 
Puerto Cabello ; E. attcnuata, Gr. 1. c. p. 68, Brazil, near E. prayensis, Kbg. ; 
E. suhdepressa, Gr. l.c. p. 68, Puerto Cabello; E. modesta, Gr. /. c. p. 64; E. 
paucihranchis, Gr. 1. c. p. 64 ; E. hipapillata, Gr. I, c. p. 64 ; E. harassii, Gr. I, c. 
p. 64 ; E. magnifica, Gr. 1. c. p. 64. 
Grubb (1. c. p. 64) states that his Eunice gracilis (vide Novara Reise, Zool. 
Theil, 2nd Bd. p. 9, Taf. 1. fig. 2) is only a variety of E. antemiata, Sav. E, 
frauenfeldi, Gr., is described in detail and figured in Novara Reise, Zool. Theil, 
2nd Bd. p. 11, Taf. 1. fig. 3. 
Onuphida. 
Aubouin &Milnb-Ed WARDS instituted the generic name Omiphis for O. ere- 
mita, Aud. & M.-Edw., and Diopatra for D. amhoinensis, Aud. & M.-Edw. ; 
and Dr. Malmgren thinks that these generic names should not gain any other 
significance ; but Quatrefages has applied the name Onuphis for Nereis tubi- 
cola, Miill., though he, at the same time, acknowledges that this animal is 
generically distinct from O. eremita, Aud. & M.-Edw., and brings together, 
under Diopatra, not only D. amhoinensis, but even O. eremita, Aud. & M.- 
Edw., O. conchylega, Sars, and other, in a generic point of view, quite dis- 
tinct Annelids. With good systematic tact, Johnston had already separated 
O. conchylega from the genus Onuphis, Aud. & M.-Edw., and placed it in a 
genus, Nothria, to which he then refers Nereis tuhicola, Miill. ; but this last- 
named species ought to be referred to a special genus, which must get a new 
name, inasmuch as Onuphis eschrichtii (= O. conchylega, Sars) becomes, ac- 
cording to Johnston’s statement, the type of his genus Nothria. 
Nothria. Malmgren, 1. c. p. 66, considers that J ohnston’s genus Northia 
(Cat. Brit. Worms in Coll. Brit. Mus. p. 136) should be spelt Nothria, as from 
Na)^p4r. 
Hyalincecia, g. n., Malmgren, 1. c. p. 67. Corpus lineare depressum. Palpi 
* rae ^Zool. Record,’ 1865, p. 725. 
1867. [voL. IV.] T 
