SERPULIDAL. 329 
(1893) in his “Tubicolous Annelids of Naples,’ and several of these are synonymous. As 
a result of many years of patient labour at Dinard, France, De St. Joseph met with 9 
species, all under diverse genera. A single species of Sprorbis is included. 
Southern! (1914) enters 8 species in the Survey of Clare Island, three of which are 
Spirorbids. 
Six occur in Allen’s’ “Catalogue (1915) of the Polycheta of Plymouth and South 
Devon,’ three of which are Spirorbids. 
An interesting paper is that of P. P. Ivanoff* on regeneration and ontogeny. He shows 
that in the regeneration, for instance, of both anterior and posterior ends of Spirographis 
the mesoderm is formed by the immigration of cells from the ectoderm. In the development 
of Hupomatus he holds that the primary mesoblasts are used up in the formation of the 
three primary somites of the larva, whilst the mesoderm of the posterior segments is 
derived from the cells of the ectoderm. Taking a broad view of the subject in the Spionids, 
Cheetopterids, Sabellids and Serpulids, he is of opinion that regeneration of the anterior end 
in these two latter differs from normal development, for, whilst the three anterior segments 
correspond to the three post-oral segments of the larva, these truly regenerate the cephalic 
lobe and the rudimentary segment supporting the branchiz, and are themselves derived 
from abdominal segments. Regeneration of the posterior region is aided by the direct 
passage of the epithelium from the ectoderm, and the new part corresponds to the posterior 
end of a young form. 
He concludes by averring that regeneration and ontogeny are not antagonistic to each 
other, but are analogous. They are mutually confirmative and explanatory. In the 
Sabellids and Serpulids the head and three anterior segments are regenerated because 
these are the primary segments, larval, and distinctly individualised in ontogeny. He does 
not affirm that regeneration repeats ontogeny strictly, for certain anomalies occur, due to 
the initial disposition of cellular material. Moreover, this process reflects also the phylogeny 
as well as the ontogeny of the species. 
An elaborate paper on the various formations in the Polychets is given by N. Livanoft 
in the forty-sixth volume (No. 2) of the ‘ Zootomical Institute of Kasan, (1914), chiefly 
from investigations on the Kunicide. As the paper is in Russian its contents are at 
present imperfectly known. 
N. Livanoff* of Kasan (1917) describes certain “ ccelothelial fibres”? in the minute 
anatomy of various Polychets, such as Amphitrite variabilis, Risso, as occurrmg on the 
walls of the intestine, the nephridia and the dissepiments, and as distinct from muscular 
fibres. He also points out that the so-called rmged muscles in connection with the bristles 
of Onuphis conchylega, Sars, are neither muscular nor elastic, but only folds of a fine 
cuticular membrane enveloping the bristle. 
In Britain the Serpulids, though beautiful, are less conspicuous than in warmer seas. 
Thus Mr. Crossland describes them in the Red Sea as among the most gorgeous denizens of 
1 «Proc. R. Irish Acad.,’ vol. xxxi, No. 47, p. 146. 
> “Journ. M. B. A.,’ n.s., vol. x, p. 643. 
‘Russian Journal of Zoology,’ vol. i, 1916. 
SINE, ORI GA oe IIL ib 
