2 Verm. 
XV. VEltMES. 
INTRODUCTION * 
The titles of papers relating to the Hemichorda and Rotifera are again 
given apart from the rest and will be found on pp. 44 and 46, respectively, 
of this record. 
There has been a lively dispute during the year with regard to the 
homologies of several of the organs in the different members of the group 
Hemichorda and in the larva of Phoronis ; but our actual knowledge of 
the group has also been added to by the discovery and description of new 
forms of the Balanoglossus group by Willey (276) & Hill (269), and a 
careful account of the anatomy of Cephalodiscus and of the Actinotrocha- 
larva of Phoronis by Montgomery (271). 
Our knowledge of the nature of, and the conditions for producing, 
the different kinds of eggs in the Rotifera is furthered by the work of 
Erlanger & Lauterborn (284), and Nusbaum (290). Jennings in his 
elaborate memoir on the early development of Asplanchna (286) gives 
important evidence against the purely mechanical theory of cleavage. 
No work on the Mesozoa is recorded this year. 
By far the most important systematic work on the Polychceta published 
during the year is that of Ehlers on the Hamburg collections (67). 
It is of especial value because the author has taken the trouble to com- 
pare his specimens with the original ones of Grube and Kinberg before 
identifying them with their species, and he has thus been able to correct, 
or modify, the descriptions of the latter author and to point out errors 
in his figures; and also on account of the excellent figures by which his 
own descriptions of 36 new species are accompanied. The same author 
(68) has reported on some polycha3tes from E. Africa, shewing the 
identity of some of them with Mediterranean or W. Indian species. 
With regard to the systematic of separate families : Mesnil’s discovery of 
a new genus, and description of 4 other spp. (2' new), intermediate between 
the Haldanidce and Arenicolidce shews the close connection that exists 
between these two families (169-m). A new Maldanid is also described 
by Lewis (150).. MIssnil (169— ii) has some further remarks to make on 
the Spionidce ; ho would remove 2 species of Aonides from this family and 
place them, as a new genus, amongst the Girratulidve , and ho would 
create a pew family intermediate between the Spionidce and Chceto- 
pteridce for the genera Disoma and Poecilochcetus. lie would also intro- 
duce Ctenodrilus into the family Cirratulidce as a retrograde species 
which has lost , all power of sexual reproduction (171). Together with 
Caullery he has made a study of the genus Spirorbis } from 28 representa- 
tive species, 12 new species are described, and the morphology, phylogeny 
and geographical distribution of the genus, together with its position in 
the family to which it belongs, is ably dealt with (173). Another new 
species of the genus is described by Schiveley (222). A new Capitellid is 
also described by M^snil (168). 
For those who are working systematically at the Polychceta a note 
giving the year 1822 as the date of publication of Savigny’s “Anndlides” 
in the “Description de PEgypte” is worth recording (see P. zool. Soc. 
London, 1897, p. 695). 
The most important contribution to our knowledge of the internal 
anatomy of the Polychceta is Fauvel’s beautifully illustrated work on the 
Ampharetidce (76). In connection with what he has to say oh the relations 
♦.The Recorder regrets having been unable to obtain some of the memoirs pub 
lished during the year. Amongst these may be mentioned those on the Fauna of 
L. Balaton, which contain descriptions of several new species. [See Nos. 252, 248, 
208, 68, and 281.] It is hoped that these, and also other memoirs whose titles are 
not here referred to, will be fully recorded next year. 
