CHONE. 289 
viz., Chone Duneri, Malmgren ; indeed, in a named collection from Greenland procured in 
the sixties of last century from Hamburg it is labelled C. infundibuliformis. Yet the form 
of the tips of the branchiz in the latter, the structure of its hooks, especially the avicular 
posterior hooks, the bristles, and other features are diagnostic. 
The original description of C. infundibuliformis by Kroyer,’ although unfortunately 
he gives no figure, is clear in regard to the structure of the branchie, the collar, the size, 
and other features. He adds that it is not rare in Greenlandic seas, and that it inhabits a 
cuticular tube devoid of mud; yet modern naturalists seem to have seldom met with it. 
Its posterior hooks are so characteristic that no confusion with C. Dunert need occur—even 
in young forms of each species. It may be a question what form Kroyer meant by his C. 
mfundibuliformis, since both it and C. Duneri are found in the Arctic Seas, but the typical 
C. infundibuliformis is chiefly Arctic in distribution, whereas OC. Dunert has a much wider 
range. After careful consideration of Malmegren’s views and of various specimens, it has 
been deemed prudent to adhere to the diagnosis indicated above. It is, however, right to 
state that Prof. Fauvel and others hold C. Duneri to be Kroyer’s C. infundibuliformis, and 
that the species held here to be C. infundibuliformis is only a variety of the former (C. 
Dunerr). This, after careful examination, does not modify either the opinions or the figures 
in this work. 
Chone Duneri has a very wide distribution, ranging from the British Seas to Norway, 
Jan Meyen, Spitzbergen, Greenland, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Madeira. A species, which 
closely approaches C. Duneri, extends along the eastern shores of Scotland, is thrown by 
storms on the sands at St. Andrews, is dredged in deep water off Montrose, and occurs in 
the stomachs of fishes such as the cod and haddock. It has been termed C. Fawvel” in the 
meantime, since the processes at the tips of the branchie form a contrast with the long, 
fihform processes in C. Duneri, and its posterior hooks generally show a tooth more above 
the main fang. Further investigations may clear up certain doubtful points in connection 
with both forms. Wollebek’s’ view that C. Duneri is a synonym of C. infundibuliformis 
cannot be corroborated. In the fine volume on the Polychets procured by the Prince of 
Monaco, Prof. Fauvel* describes and figures C. Duneri as C. infundibuliformis, and it is possible 
that the rarity of the latter and the abundance of the former in northern waters have led 
to this interpretation, which formerly we in Britain equally shared. Prof. Fauvel’s figures 
of the bristles and hooks in his account of the Polycheeta from Jan Mayen are excellent. In 
all probability the species from the area of the Clyde? is Chone fawvelr, and not C. infundibuli- 
formes, which has not hitherto been met with in British waters. The species described by 
Miss Katherine Bush® as Chone teres appears to be closely allied to the last-mentioned species, 
especially in the structure of its posterior hooks. Besides the foregoing forms, Chone Reayi 
1 «Oversigt Kgl. danske Videnskab. Selskabs Forhandl.” 1856—57, p. 33. 
2 After Prof. P. Fauvel, of the University of Angers, France, who has done much good work in 
the group. 
8 <Skrift. Videnskap. Selsk. Kristiania,’ 1911, 2 Bind, No. 18, p. 24. 
4 «Campagne Scient.,’ fasc. xlvi, p. 319, pl. xxx1, figs. 1O—18 (1914). 
5 “Proc. Roy. Irish Acad.,’ vol. xxxi, no. 47, p. 141. 
6 “Harriman Alaska Exped. Tubicol. Annel., New York,’ 1905, p. 215, pl. xxx, fig. 1, and pl. 
xxxvul, figs. 16—23. 
