84 
AUSTRALASIAN ANTARCTIC EXPEDITION. 
There are indeed one or two points in which my specimens seem to differ from 
Gravier’s account, which may be due to differences in the state of preservation or of 
a ge. Thus, lie states that he could detect no eyes. In most of the present worms 
the se are distinctly present as a series of minute black dots, in two to four rows on each 
side : this oculiferous area occupies about half the height of the prostomium on each 
side. In some of my specimens, however, they are absent. And it has been noted 
by Elders and other authors that in some species of Terebellids eyespots are sometimes 
present, sometimes absent. 
I think that Gravier must have overlooked the fact that the ventral surface of 
2nd and 3rd segments coalesce, though they are distinct laterally and dorsally, and 
laterally the 2nd segment is very much compressed, and therefore quite short. He 
states that the “ flap ” is borne by the 2nd segment. 1 find it distinctly on the 
next. Also the first gill is said to be on the first segment, instead of, as I find it, on 
^lie 2nd. 
Again, Gravier writes that “there is only one row of uncini.” This is true for the 
anterior and posterior segments, but from about the 10th to the end of the thorax, 
that is to segment 18,1 find that there are two series of uncini close together and facing 
alternately fore and aft, interdigitating with each other, so that they simulate a single 
row till examined under a microscope. 
The bristles of the 1st notopod have simple points, with a narrow flange on both 
sides, which is not striated. But the bristles of the later segments are stouter, with a 
narrow flange on one side and a broader one on the other, each faintly striated. 
Apart from these slight discrepancies I think there is no doubt that the worms 
before-me are identical with those described by my French colleague. 
Locality .— 
Boat Harbour, 3|-4 fathoms. 
Distribution .—Off Terre Alexandre and Port Cironcision (ile Petermann). 
Remarks. —Both Elders and Gravier, in discussing the allied form T. ( Phyzelia) 
fasciata Grube, show how difficult it is to define the genera and sub-genera 
of this family; they give up in despair the attempt to set things right for 
these exotic species, although He St. J oseph has arrived at some apparently 
satisfactory conclusions with regard to the European species. 
In dealing with this species Gravier expresses himself as being unable 
to decide whether it should come into the genus Polymnia Mlmgrn, or Nicolea 
or Scione, and yet finally he places it in Phyzelia, which has received different 
limitations by various authors. Under the circumstances it may be as well 
left in the genus Terebella lato sensu. 
