Natural History Museum Library





e.O. & ru rt^








Captain GEORGE S. NARES, R.N., F.R.S.





Sir C. WYVILLE THOMSON, Knt., F.R.S., &c.





Puf)lt£il)eli bp of i^er jHajestp’g ^obernment






Price Sixty Shillings.


The Editor of the Challenger Reports will be greatly obliged to Authors sending him copies of separate papers, or references to works, in which the Challenger discoveries are referred to, or the observations of the Expedition are discussed.

This will greatly facilitate the compilation of a complete Biblio- graphy, and the discussion of the results of the Expedition, in the final Volume of the Series.

Letters and Papers should be addressed


Chau.enger Office,

J2 Queen Street,



The Report on the Annelida Polych^ta, by Professor William C. MTntosh, F.R.S., &c., occupies the whole of the present volume, and forms Part XXXIV. of the Zoological Series of Reports on the Scientific Results of the Expedition.

The preparation of this valuable Report has occupied Professor MTntosh over seven years, and it will be welcomed by all naturalists as a most laborious and painstaking contribution to Science.

The Manuscript was received by me in fifteen batches, at various dates, between the 8th August 1884 and the 20th July 1885.

John Murray.

Challenger Office, 32 Queen Street, Edinburgh, \st SepUmher 1885.


vii, line 12, for Edward” read Edouard.”

21, “PI. IlA. figs. 8-12” should he “PI. IIa. figs. 9-11.”

27, “PL III. fig. 3” should he “PI. III. fig. 2.”

29, “PI. IIIa. figs. 10-12” shoidd he “PI. IIIa. figs. 10, 11.”

34, Aphrodita australis, for “PI. VII.” read “PI. VI.”

39, Loitmoniee producta, insert reference to “PL VI. figs. 1, 2.”

67, Lepidonotus eristatus, PL XI. fig. 2 {7iot fig. 3 ”), and PL XVII. fig. 1 {not PI. XVIII.”) 71, after Eunoa opalma” insert “PL VIIIa. figs. 9-11.”

77, for PL XXXII. fig. 7 read PL XXXIIa. fig. 7.”

Ill, for Polynoe platyeirnts” read Polynoe platycirrataf 135, for PL XXIIa.” read PL XIIIa.” '

170, line 9 from foot, for Genetyllis lutea'" read Genehjllis oculata.”

172, line 7 from foot, for Genetyllis lutea,” read Genetyllis oculata.” '

223, line 10 from foot) transpose and “long.”

240, in explanation of woodcut, fig. 4 capensis” should be pettigrewi.”

244, line 4, for Lumhriconereis capensis” read Notoeirrus capensis.”

299, line 6 from bottom, after “PL XXXVIII. figs. 6-8,” add “fig. 19.”

337, line 14 from bottom, after Hyalinceeia tuhicola, &c.,” add “PL XL. fig. 2.”

343, for Glycera tesselata read Glycera tessellata.”

343, Glycera capitata, also from Station II.; lat. 38° 10' X., long. 14' W.; depth, 470 fathoms; sea- bottom, green mud.

346, line 2, for hremewris read hrevicirrus.”

359, line 14, /or “Station 141, &c.,” read “Station 145a, December 27, 1873; lat. 46° 41' S., long.

38° 10' E. ; depth, 310 fathoms; sea-bottom, volcanic sand.”

385, insert Ghtetozone, Malmgren.”

394, line 16, for antaretia” read antarctica.”

394, line 17, “west” should he “east.”

480, line 4 from foot, add “also from Christmas Harbour, Kerguelen.”

481, line 12 from foot, /or “above”’ read “below.”

481, lines 5 and 6, for above the ventral edge read below the dorsal arch.”




KEPORT on. the Annelida Polych^ta collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-76. By William C. M‘Intosh, M.D., L.R.C.S.E., LL.D., F.R.SS. L. & E., F.L.S., C.M.Z.S., Soc. Psychol. Par. Soc. Honor., &c.; Professor of Natural History in the University of St. Andrews.


During the organisation of the Challenger Expedition the subject of the Annelids had several times been brought under my notice by the late Dr. Owyn Jeffreys, who more than any other marine zoologist in our country had kept the department in view during various dredging expeditions in the neighbouring seas. Though unable, by reason of strict and responsible official engagements, to lend any active service to the Expedition, I had explained as fully as possible the best mode of preserving these somewhat delicate animals (Annelids) both to Professor Wyville Thomson and Mr. Murray. Towards the middle of 1877 I received intimation from Sir Wyville Thomson about the examination of this part of the collection, which he described as somewhat limited in extent. A review of the specimens, however, on their arrival proved that instead of being limited, the series was an extensive one, and reflected much credit on the scientific staff of the Expedition. This was probably due 'to the interest taken in the group by the late Dr. Rudolf von Willemoes-Sulmi, a young naturalist of great ability, whose previous acquaintance with the Annelida had been considerably extended by a trip to the Fseroes just before the equipment of the Challenger. He was chiefly occupied with the Crustacea, it is true, during the voyage, though a few notes and sketches he made on the Annelids will be specially referred to. The loss of this




accomplished and energetic young naturalist ^ was a serious blow to the zoological stafl' of the Expedition.

Mr. Murray forwarded eight pages of sketches and notes made by Dr. v. Willemoes- Suhm. The first refers to a Nematoid parasite in a prawn procured on February 24, 1874 (Antarctic Ocean), in 150 fathoms, apparently very similar to one found in a prawn in Shetland many years ago, and forwarded to Dr. Cobbold. The second is an Eteone (probably new) from the Spanish coast. Station L, lat. 41° 58' N., long. 42' W., in 1125 fathoms. The third is termed by Dr. v. Willemoes-Suhm a Syllidean, but it also approaches the Alciopidse in the structure of the feet. The fourth sketch enables me to supplement the description of Dalhousia atlantica (p. 186), and to correct the remark that there is no median tentacle. Dr. v. Willemoes-Suhm did not attach any name to this form, but there can be no doubt it is the same specimen. In the fresh animal the elevated areas of the head do not seem to be so prominent, and Dr. v. Willemoes-Suhm figures the crescentic pigment-mass on each side as the posterior pair of eyes, while the smaller pair behind the large anterior eyes are not shown. In his view of the foot a long slender ventral cirrus is indicated, this being absent in the preparation. His figure of a ventral bristle is quite recognisable, and he adds a wing or guard in the fresh specimen at the tip. Moreover, the drawing of the pharyngeal region and stomach is characteristic, no armature, as already stated, being present. The tail terminates somewhat bluntly, has two median slender cirri, and two lateral jointed processes, thus agreeing with the arrangement at the anterior end. It is satisfactory that the further information derived from the sketches of the lamented naturalist does not alter in any material respect the position assigned to this novel form.

The fifth sheet represents a pen and ink sketch of the peculiar Trophonia ivyvillei (p. 366) of the natural size, and one of its bristles, under the term Annelide aus der Ophelien-Familie,” while it is further stated Fuss-stummeln und Kiemen fehlen ganzlich.” It is not remarkable that this form should have given rise to ambiguity. The sixth series of sketches are connected with Mynochele from Station 20 (p. 410). Dr. V. Willemoes-Suhm termed the form Myriochele abyssorum, n. sp.,” but as his figure of the hook is not minutely accurate enough for satisfactory comparison, and the figure of the body of the animal shows no new feature, the decision that it is Myriochele lieeri, Malmgren, is perhaps at present prudent.

The seventh plate represents a Protula from 600 fathoms,” Cape St. Vincent, Portugal. It is uncertain whether this be Protula lusitanica, from Station II., 470 fathoms, or another form. All Dr. Willemoes-Suhm states is that -it is a Serpuloid.” The eighth and last sheet gives an imperfect sketch of Hydroplianes, procured on August 20, 1873, off St. Paul’s Eocks. From the partial outline with pen and ink this seems

^ For an interesting memorial of E. von Willemoes-Suhm, Ph.D., vide Challenger Briefe an C. Th. E. von Siehold ; Nach dem Tode des Verfassers herausgegehen von seiner Mutter. Leipzig, 1877, and also the Narr. Chall. Exp., vol. i. p. 769, 1885.



to be a remarkable form with some superficial resemblances to the Polynoidse, though it may be a larval animal belonging to a different tyj^e. The absence of minute descrip- tions, with the exception of Trophonia loyvillei, and still more of specimens, prevents anything further being advanced about the foregoing sketches.

Numerous specimens of Sternaspis occurred in the collection, but, believing with Selenka, Vejdovsky, and others, that this group lies between the Chsetopoda and Gephyrea, they were at once forwarded with a few other forms to Prof. E. Pay Lankester, who at that time intended to work up the Gephyreans.^ It was my intention to describe the Nemerteans, and, indeed, sections of the majority had been made, and an outline of the group and its literature prepared. So much work, however, had fallen to my lot since my return to St. Andrews, especially in connection with the fisheries, that with Mr. Murray’s sanction I had great pleasure in handing over the Nemerteans to my friend Prof. Hubrecht of Utrecht, in whose skilled hands the interests of science will be more than safe. I confidently look forward to the publication of the recent important researches of Ur. Hubrecht, based on the Nemerteans of this Expedition.

A few Crustacean parasites occurred on the Annelids, and it has been deemed proper to describe them along with their hosts rather than separate them by giving them over to another worker.

In order to gain a correct view of the position occupied by the group to which this Report is devoted, I have made a few notes on some of the previous voyages. These must not by any means be regarded as complete or exhaustive, but simply represent a few broad touches to aid in bringing out the relations of the series of Annelids collected by the Challenger to previous efforts in this department.

The earlier voyagers seldom included the Annelids in their collections, though it is true a ship captain brought some specimens to Pallas, and gave that author an oppor- tunity of describing certain new forms; while a few others, for iustance Adler, mention them in connection with phosphorescence. In some of these voyages the invertebrates, however, formed a prominent feature, e.g., in Phipp’s Voyage to the North Pole in H.M.S. “Racehorse.”^ Moreover, in this early expedition it is evident considerable care had been taken to secure specimens, and the use of the trawl on the northern shores of Spitzbergen is a feature of considerable interest. Three Annelids are mentioned as having been thus procured, viz., Serpula spirorbis, Serpula triquetra, and Sabella frustiilosa, the latter characterised by Testa solitaria libera simplici curvata; fragmentis conchaceis sabulosisque.” The attention given to zoology in this expedition is note- worthy, and in contrast, for instance, with what was done in M. Soniierat’s Voyage a la Nouvelle Guinee,® which was published shortly afterwards.

1 Vide Keport on the Gephyrea, collected by H.M.S. Challenger, by Prof. Emil Selenka of Erlangen. Zool. Chalk Exp., part xxxvi., 1885.

^ London, 1774, 4to.

^ Paris, 1776.



The voyages in the latter part of the eighteenth century and the begioning of the nineteenth showed little improvement in this respect. Thus the cruise round the world in the ships King George and Queen Charlotte ^ gave no addition to our knowledge of this and some other invertebrate groups, though crabs, shells, and birds are mentioned and figured, and the same may be said of the French Voyage de la Perouse autour du Monde.^ Similar remarks apply to the trip to Cuba and St. Domingo by M. E. Descourtily,^ and to Baron Albert von Sack’s Voyage to Surinam,^ The cruise of H.M.S. Investigator to Australia and other parts was even less productive in this department.

Captain Tuckey’s voyage to the Zaire (usually called Congo) contains a note® by J. Cranch that a new species of Nereis was taken on a bit of floating wood, lat. 21' 0" N., long. 49' 37" E., together with a genus not known to him. A single species {Nereis heteropoda) also is given by Chamisso and Eysenhardt in their Voyage Round the World. ^ There can be little doubt that during Sir John Ross’ two Arctic voyages (1818 and 1829) Annelids of considerable interest must have been obtained, indeed, he mentions in his first voyage that “worms’’ were procured in the mud at the depth of 1000 fathoms. Unfortunately the collections in each case have disappeared.

In the Narrative of a Survey of the Intertropical and Western Coasts of Australia, by Captain King, the versatile talents of Dr. J, E. Gray added an Annelid to the list, viz., Leodice gigantea, Savigny,* which measured nearly five feet in length.

The presence of so acute an officer as Captain Ed. Sabine in Parry’s first voyage ® to Greenland, accounts for the mention of two species of Annelids from the “Fauna Groenlandica,’’ viz.. Poly me cirrata and Polynoe scabra. The notices of Annelids, however, at this time by navigators are brief and fragmentary, a single species, jDerhaps, only coming under observation, as for instance in Eschscholtz’s voyage from Cronstadt to St. Peter and St. Paul, in which Tomopteris oniscifoj'inis is mentioned. Even in more ambitious voyages they made a small appearance, as for example in Freycinet’s Voyage autour du Monde. In other expeditions certain groups of Vermes become prominent, as in Riippel’s Atlas zu der Reise im nbrdlichen Africa, where the Planarians and Gephyreans {Sipunctdi) are specially noticed by Leu chart. The Nemerteans, again, occupy a plate in the Voyage de 1’ Astrolabe, and reference is made to the elegant forms and rich coloration of such Annelids as Amphitrite, Serpida, Nereis, and TerehellaP

In the Voyages en Scandinavie et en Laponie,^^ considerable attention is given to

1 By Captains Portlock and Dickson, London, 1789, 4to.

^ 4 vols., Paris, 1797. ^ Voyages d’un Naturaliste, &c., Paris, 1809.

* London, 1810. ® 2 vols. 4to., London, 1814.

® Narrative of an Expedition to Explore tlie Eiver Zaire, &c., London, 1818, Appendix, p. 418.

T Berolini, 1819-1822 (?). « London, 1818-1822, p. 437.

^ Supplement to the Appendix of Captain Parry’s First Voyage for the Discovery of a N.W. Passage, &c., London, 1824, p. 239.

Frankfurt am Main, 1826.


Voyage de I’Astrolabe (ZooL), MM. Quoy et Gaimard, Pari.?, 1834.



the Nemerteans and Planarians, but little to the Annelids, though an atlas of fifty folio plates (many coloured) enriches the work. The groups just mentioned, on the other hand, disappear from such works as The Zoology of Captain Beechy’s Voyage to the Pacific and Behrings Island in H.M.S. “Blossom,”^ and the Voyage autour du Monde par les mers de ITnde et de Chine execute sur la corvette de I’Etat la Favourite, though many other groups are mentioned in both works.

The extensive area traversed by H.M.S. “Sulphur,” under the command of Sir E. Belcher, was barren of results in regard to the Annelids ; and even Mr. Darwin’s classic voyage in H.M.S. “Beagle” produced little in the department of the marine forms further than a few interesting Planarians, including a pelagic form in the open sea, off Fernando Noronha.

During the Antarctic voyage of Sir James Eoss, Dr. (now Sir Joseph) Hooker^ mentions that Ditrypa and another Annelid were dredged at 400 fathoms, while between 200 and 400 fathoms, off Victoria Land, Serimlce and various other Annelids were procured by the same instrument. The interest taken by this author in the group is well shown by a series of carefully coloured drawings of Annelids made during the voyage in H.M. ships Erebus and Terror,” and forwarded to me by Mr. Murray for examination. These include examples of Syllis and Nereis, of the Phyllodocidse and Lumbrinereidse, fragments of the Terebellidse, and a complete young form, a species like Potamilla, and various examples of the Serpulidse, amongst which Serpula narconensis, with its roseate branchial plumes, appears to be represented. Excellent drawings of Tomopteris and a Pontobdella conclude the list. That a botanist should have done so much under the circumstances merits more than a passing comment. From the published account of this voyage^ a considerable amount of information is obtained about the nature of the natural harbours at Kerguelen, the muddy bottoms of which especially abound in Annelids.

The latter are, again, absent from the account of the voyage of H.M.S. “Fly,”^ but the zoology of this expedition, it is true, comprises only four pages of the appendix. None occur in the invertebrates found during the voyage of H.M.S. Samarang.” ^

A change was now, however, looming in the distance, and the publication of Prof. Edward Grube’s account of the Annelids procured in the Eeise in den aussersten Norden und Osten Sibiriens,® forms one of the earlier indications of increased attention to the group. Several expeditions, however, the accounts of which were j)ublished after this date, give little information on the subject, such as the United States Exploring Expedition (C. Wilkes),^ the Voyage autour du Monde of “La Bonite,”® and

1 London, 1839, 4to. ^ Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist, ser. i. vol. xvi. p. 238, 1845.

3 Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions, London, 1847, 4 vols.

* 2 vols. 8vo., London, 1847.

^ Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Samarang,” under Sir E. Belcher, London, 1850.

® St. Petersburg, 1851. ^ Philadelphia, 1852. ® Paris, 1852.



Macgillivray’s Narrative of the Voyage of H.M.S. Eattlesnake,” ^ yet in the latter the powerful help of Assistant-Surgeon T. H. Huxley was available. As an example of the scanty reference to the group in these, it may be mentioned that the only example of the “Vers” in the Zoologie of the “La Bonite” is Sagitta hipunctata. This work, however, is pre-eminent in its folio atlas of beautifully coloured steel engravings. No improvement on the foregoing in regard to the Annelids occurred in the zoology of H.M.S. “Herald,” edited by Edward Forbes;^ and the same may be said of The Last of the Arctic Voyages, by Sir E. Belcher.^

The presence of W. Stimpson in the United States Surveying Expedition to the North Pacific, Japan Sea, &c., resulted in the brief description^ of various Annelids, but the con- tribution is limited and difficult to follow from the absence of illustrative figures. In the voyage of A. S. OErsted to the West Indies and Central America, and that of H. Kroyer to South America, about a hundred Annelids were procured, and these formed the materials for Grube’s well-known Annulata CErstediana,® which only lacked figures to have been much more important. All previous expeditions, however, were eclipsed by the able report of Kinberg on the Annelids of the Swedish frigate Eugenie,” ® in which a thoroughly scientific grasp of this subject was taken, and the aid of a really skilful artist obtained in drawing the structural features of the animals. Unfortunately, but a fragment of the work is complete, the majority of the forms being only known by brief descriptions in the Ofversigt k. Vetensk.-Akad. Forhandl. Such a contribution marks an era in the list of voyages, and is equally creditable to Kinberg and his country.

Following close upon this publication is the treatise by Schmarda on the Turbellarians Rotifers and Annelids procured “Auf einer Reise um die Erde.” The second volume is composed for the most part of an account of the marine Annelids, with nineteen brightly coloured plates (steel engravings) and many woodcuts, and both it and the former are referred to constantly in the subsequent Report on the Annelids collected by the Challenger. The work^ forms a conspicuous landmark in the history of the subject, and though often failing in severe attention to structural details, bears evidence of much labour and perseverance.

The many voyages undertaken in our country previous to the Challenger Expedition had produced zoologically results of considerable value, though the scientific staff connected with their production both at home and abroad was often of a very limited description. We were, however, not in advance of other countries in this respect. This is boldly shown by the liberal subsidy by government which enabled the fine series of volumes (six of which were zoological) giving the results of the Austrian Novara Expedition to

1 London, 1852. ^ London, 1854. ^ London, 1855.

* Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., 1855, &c.

® Vidensk. Meddel. f. d. nat. Foren., 1856-58.

® Kongliga svenska Fregatten Eugenics Eesa omkring jorden, &c., Stockkolm, 1858.

^ Zweite Heft, Leipzig, 1861.



surpass anything of this kind previously published in our own country. Grube took the Annelids ^ in hand, and in less than half a hundred pages and four fine steel plates carefully described them and figured the most interesting. In this department, therefore, the comparison with the Annelidan results of the Challenger is noteworthy, since both ships traversed similar seas.

Stimulated by such examples as the foregoing, as well as by the activity of the Scandinavians and Americans, and more than all by the influence of the late Sir Wyville Thomson and Dr. Gwyn Jeffreys, in conjunction with Dr. Carpenter, our own government fitted out the “Lightning” and “Porcupine,” and in both ships, notably in the final expedition of the latter (1870), very considerable additions were made to our knowledge of the Annelids, especially by the labours of Prof. Ehlers of Gottingen, who, after the death" of Edward ClajDarede, examined those frequenting deeper water than 500 fathoms in the “Lightning” and “Porcupine” expeditions of 1868 and 1869. Subsequent voyages have further extended our information in the Annelidan department, as for instance the cruise of Dr. Gwyn Jeffreys in the “Valorous” to Davis Strait, the last North Polar Expedition under Sir George Nares, the Transit of Venus Expedition to Kerguelen, the dredgings of Captain St. John in the China Sea, and those of Dr. John Murray in the Knight Errant and Triton in the North Atlantic.

The recent advances made in our knowledge of the Annelids by the expeditions of other nations have been numerous ; indeed, no well-organised exploration of the ocean now returns without representatives of the group. Amongst others that occur to me are the American expeditions in the Blake,” the Annelids of which are now in the skilled hands of Prof. Ehlers ; the collection made by the German exploring ship Gazelle,” a preliminary account of which was published by the late veteran zoologist, Prof. Grube, in 1877, and which is frequently referred to in the following pages ; the Annelids of the Swedish North Polar Expedition under Prof. Nordenskiold, as described and figured by Theel ; and those of the Norwegian North Atlantic Expedition by Hansen. In the Challenger a large number of the Annelids were procured in the trawl, and this is consonant with our own experience in British waters. The extensive surface afforded by the trawl, and the readiness with which Annelids, Nemerteans, and even such forms as Corymorpha cling to the meshes is remarkable, while perhaps it is occasionally vain to search for them with a dredge.

General Condition of the Preparations.

In reviewing the condition of the preparations forwarded for examination, it has to be stated that many, as might have been expected, are injured or have to be described from mere fragments. A few had been dried. The great depth from which others were obtained probably caused laceration or softening before they reached the surface, and in

1 Annel. Novara-Exp., Zool. Theil., Bd. ii. Atth. 3, 1868.



this respect it is well to remember that many sj)ontaneously rupture on the slightest irritation.

In regard to the preservation of the Annelids, it is unsafe to mix them with other classes, for when separation is carried out by hands that perhaps are imperfectly acquainted with the grou|), loose scales or cirri are apt to be overlooked, and are thus irretrievably lost.

One important aid in dealing with any group was entirely absent, viz., coloration. The staff on board the Challenger w^as wholly inadequate to overtake this department, yet the beauty of the marine Annelids as a whole depends on the endless variety and often gorgeous loveliness of their hues.

Methods followed in Description.

In dealing with the materials placed at my disposal, an external survey of each was made under a lens, the structure of the feet, the minute anatomy of the bristles and hooks, as well as of the body-wall and other parts, was considered. It w'as impossible, however, to do more than glance at the anatomy of the group in passing, leaving for the present, for instance, such interesting questions as the nature of the remarkably folded organ (called liver by Johannes Steen at the anterior jiart of the alimentary canal (below and at the sides of the gullet) of Terehellides, for future consideration. Little reliance was placed on the description of the bristles and hooks without accurate representa- tions, since many species come so close that it would be very difficult for one’s successors to comprehend all the details. The distinctions while reliable are fine. Moreover, the hard parts just mentioned are less liable to be altered by the spirit than the soft tissues of the animals. The remarkable modifications observed in the bristles of every foot in many of the groups, and which are so disposed that a regular gradation in form exists between those at the superior border, and those at the inferior border, afford even a more complex subject for reflection than the changes undergone by the spines of an Echinoderm.


The large number of new forms brought within our knowledge by the Challenger would have been supposed to lead to a noteworthy change in classification, but from the first it was apparent that no new family was required. All the types fell under the groups already constituted, and which have been very satisfactorily given by Malmgren in his Annulata Polychseta.^ A careful review of these groups in connection with the arrangement and relations of the nerve-cords, and the general structure of the body-wall,

^ Jenaische Zeitsclir., Bd. xvi. p. 227, Jena, 1883.

2 Helsingfors, 1867.



in 1876^ led me to give a general support to this classification, and further experience has not as yet shown the necessity for any material change. It is true there are some forms, such as the genus Eulepis, which almost merit the distinction of a separate family, but they have only recently been discovered, and may properly be left for further investigation.


While perhaps some species might have been united, the difficulties surrounding the subject (arising chiefly from imperfect descriptions and figures of essential parts) have been considerable. It is hoped, however, that the present observations and drawings will enable subsequent observers to clear up the discrepancies. There can be no doubt, as A. S. CErsted observed, that a single accurate figure, for instance of a characteristic hook or bristle, is of greater cod sequence in certain cases than an elaborate Latin description ; moreover, experience does not altogether bear out the statement made by Hansen with regard to the Polynoidse, viz., that the scales are of greater importance in specific separa- tion than the bristles. A specimen certainly would be more easily and accurately determined with both scales and bristles present, but some, including myself, would consider a specimen of greater value with bristles and without scales, than with scales and without bristles.

No less than about two hundred and twenty new species fall to be noticed.

Food of Annelids.

In many cases the food of the Annelids has been examined, and as there can be no question (excluding surface forms) that this was obtained on the bottom of the ocean, the condition of the various types in their alimentary canals has a direct bearing on their bathymetrical distribution. Thus the almost perfect state of some organisms, for example, Foraminifera and Radiolaria, with their contained protoplasm in the digestive tracts of Annelids from great depths, leads us to conclude that in all probability they live there, and do not in all cases fall to the bottom for the nourishment of the fauna of that region. The discrimination shown by the Annelids in regard to food may readily be observed by contrasting the muddy contents of the alimentary canal with that forming the tube. Most feed on mud containing minute organisms, but others devour their neighbours, small Crustaceans, zoophytes, and sponges, while a few, such as certain Nereids and Eunicidse, are partial to Fuci and other Algse.

1 Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., 1876-77, vol. ix. p. 372. This paper has escaped the notice of Dr. Pruvot in his Eecherches Anat. et Morphologiques sur les systeme Nerveux des Annelides Polychetes, Archives d. Zool. expe'r., 1885, No. 2,

p. 210.

(zool. chall. exp.— part XXXIV. 1885.) LI h




The majority of the tubes formed by the Annelids collected by the Challenger have been described along with their inhabitants, but a few remarks are necessary on certain empty tubes. A very striking form is one procured by the trawl at Station 298 (south of Valparaiso); lat. 34° 1' S., long. 73° 56' W.; depth, 2225 fathoms; bottom tem- perature 35°‘6, surface temperature 59° ; sea-bottom, blue mud. The same form comes from the neighbouring Station 299. It consists of a triangular tapering tube (PI. XLIX. figs. 8, 9) composed of very fine dark mud, and having the three ridges hispid vdth short muddy processes. On magnifying the surface between the ridges (fig. 9) peculiar trans- verse markings, which almost resemble scutes, are observed. Its occupant probably pertained to the Terebellidse or a neighbouring family, but no trace of it was found.

The tubes composed of the secretion produced by the body of the animal, such as those of Hyalincecia and Eunice, are of course independent of their surroundings, but the majority have a composite nature, viz., have either an internal lining of the secretion or an admixture, and an external investment of mud or other solid particles. On the blue mud and red clay the tubes are often almost entirely formed of these deposits. As GlohigerincB appear these are studded over the surface of the mud ; while in certain localities the discoid Foraminifera are set on edge on the surface of the mud so as to render the tube hispid. Massive tubes, almost entirely composed of Foraminifera, occurred at Station 158 (south of Australia). Small bivalves and other Mollusks are also largely used to strengthen and protect muddy tubes, and the extreme development of this method is shown in the empty tube in fig. 13 of PI. XXXIXa. from Port Jackson. The tube is quite squamous, from a close series of Molluscan valves which overlap each other around the tube.

General Kemarks.

The drawings of the first fifty-five plates were made by my niece, who patiently endeavoured to render them as life-like as possible, though it was hardly possible in all cases to represent minute structural detail. Moreover, many of the specimens were so much injured that difficulty was felt in making a satisfactory picture ; indeed, previous knowledge of their structure was necessary in this respect. Upwards of thirty plates and the woodcuts are from my own drawings, a fact which will explain the somewhat tardy a^Dpearance of the Report, which had to be carried on amidst one or two distractions. Mr. Edward Prince and Mr. John Wilson, my former students and prize- men, aided me with several of the concluding plates ; while Dr. R. Marcus Gunn, previously associated with me in Perthshire, and now one of the ophthalmic surgeons at Moorfields, illustrated his own observations on the eyes of the Alciopidse and Phyllodocidse.



It may be deemed by some an inconvenience to refer to several plates for the structural and other details of the same species, but the study of the Annelids is a matter that requires so much deliberation that the inconvenience is comparatively slight. Moreover, it was found that different treatment was required in the execution of the structural plates. In the explanations of the latter, it has not been thought necessary to go into details, since this had already been done in the text.

I have to acknowledge the unfailing courtesy of Dr. John Murray, who, after the death of Sir Wyville Thomson, became Director of the Challenger Commission, of Mr. Hoyle, M.A., M.R.C.S., Naturalist to the Commission, and Mr. Monteith of the same office, who suggested improvements in passing the work through the press. Prof Moseley also kindly forwarded a fine specimen of the Hexactinellicl Sponge {Cratero- morpha meyeri) infested by Syllis ramosa, from the Oxford Museum. It was procured off the Philippines by Capt. Chimmo of H.M.S. “Herald.”

To Prof Flower, Director of the British Museum, as well as Prof Jeffrey Bell and Mr. S. 0. Ridley of the same institution, I am much indebted for their aid in examining the Annelids in the collection. I am especially obliged to Prof Jeffrey Bell for his patient and courteous attention in this respect. Lastly, Dr. Murie’s valued aid in the Library of the Linnean Society deserves my cordial acknowledgments.


In the following arrangement I have adopted the regions given by Prof. Busk in his able Eeport on the Polyzoa, which regions are generally acquiesced in by most observers. They are, indeed, such as suggest themselves in a natural grouping of the oceanic areas.

In the first of these. A., the North Atlantic Eegion (see the sketch-map), a large number of forms occur, and relatively few range to other areas ; but this apparent definition in so vast a region is probably due to the comparatively unexplored condition both of it and the other oceans. "Within its limits marked diversities present them- selves, such as the comparative absence of the Amphinomidse (with the exception of Paramphinone) in the north-eastern part of the area, and their abundance in the south-western; the appearance of the Euphrosynidae between tide-marks in the southern parts, and their limitation to the deeper water in the northern. Most of the genera are cosmopolitan in their range, but the remarkable new genus BusJciella is entirely confined to the abysses of this and the South Atlantic. Many interesting extensions of the previously known range of genera have been made by the Challenger, for example, the finding of Pulepis in the West Indies, its original habitat being in the Philippines*. The cosmopolitan habits of such types as Harmothoe imhricata, Hyalinceda tubicola, Scolecolepis cirrata, and Terebellides stroemi have also been more clearly disclosed.


Besides the purely pelagic Alciopidae, which were met with by the Challenger in the Atlantic and Antarctic Oceans, as well as more abundantly in Mid Pacific, oflF the Sandwich Islands, Tomopteridae and various larval forms occurred. Amongst the latter were young Terebellidae, about half an inch in length, which were caught in the Atlantic on the return voyage. Various larval Polygordii were found in the tow-nets near St. Vincent, Cape Verde Islands, along with Tornaria, Pteropods, and Copepods. Tomopteris, again, ranged to both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and was ? ccompanied by Sagitta, Copepoda, and various larval forms such as the young of Chh'odota. The



surface-fauna of our own seas presents similar cliaracters, though such types as Alciopa are rarely met with. A remarkable feature in the surface collections of the Challenger is the occurrence of a Glycera of the ordinary marine type on the surface of an inland sea in Japan. The specimen is about an inch in length, and by no means larval, for the proboscidian armature is complete. The state of the nets perhaps may not have been such as lead to absolute reliance on this peculiar exception.

A. North Atlantic Eegion.

Station II. Off Setubal ; lat. 38° 10' S. (dredged).

Allmaniella setubalensis, n. sp. Nephthys malmgreni, Theel.

Syllis setubalensis, n. sp.

long. 14' W. ; 470 fathoms; green mud

Praxilla cliallengerice, n. sp. Euthelepus setubalensis, n. sp. Protula lusitanica, n. sp.

Station III. Off Cape St. Vincent; lat. 37° 2' N,, long. 14' W. ; 900 fathoms; blue mud (dredged).

Nothria conchylega, Sars.

Station VI. Off Gibraltar; lat. 36° 23' N., long. 11° 18' W. ; 1525 fathoms; Globi- gerina ooze (trawled).

Evarne tenuisetis, n. sp. Nereis longisetis, n. sp.

Maldane malmgreni, n. sp. Amphicteis gunneri, Sars.

Station 3. South of the Canaries ; lat. hard ground (dredged).

Chloenea atlantica, n. sp.

Polynoe [Robertianella) synopli- thalma, n. sp., B.

25° 45' N., long. 20° 14' W. ; 1525 fathoms ;

Halodora reynaudii, Aud. and Edw. (surface).

Dalliousia atlantica, n. sp.

Station 20, East of the Antilles; lat. 18° 56' N., long. 59° 35' W. ; 2975 fathoms; red clay (dredged).

Myriocliele heeri, Malmgren.



Station 23. Oflf Sombrero and St. Thomas,

AphrocUta intermedia, n. sp.

Eulepis challengericB, n. sp. Psammolyce occidentalis, n. sp. Macduffia honhardi, n. sp.

Nothria sonibreriana, n. sp. and var.

Station 33. Off the Bermudas ; lat. 32° mud (dredged).

Eulepis ivyvillei, n. sp.

Eunotomastus grubei, n. sp.

Station 36. Off the Bermudas ; lat. 32° (dredged).

Notopygos megalops, n. sp.

Off the Bermudas, floating at surface on a ] Amphinome rostrata, Pallas.

Between tide-marks, Bermuda.

Eurythoe paci/ica, Kinberg, D. Polynoe pustulata, n. sp.

Nereis iPerinereis) melanocephala, n. sp.

Eunice vittata, Della Chiaje, var. cirrohranchiata, n. sp. harvicensis, n. sp.

West Indies ; 390 to 450 fathoms (about).

Scolecolepis cirrata, Sars, var. 2. Chcetozone atlantica, n. sp.

Maldane atlantica, n. sp,

Ampharete sombreriana, n, sp. Melinna maculata, Webster.

L' N., long. 64° 35' W. ; 435 fathoms; coral

Placostegus assimilis, n. sp. Spirobranchus occidentalis, n. sp.

' N., long. 65° 4' W.; 30 fathoms; coral

Hipponoe gaudichaudi. And. and Edw. (surface).



Hermodice carunculata, Pallas. Eunice sp,

Aricia platycephala, n. sp. Cirratulus assimilis, n. sp.

Terebella crassicornis, Schmarda. Pista sombreriana, n. sp.

Dasychone bairdi, n. sp,

Serpida sombreriana, n, sp.

Station 44. Off Chesapeake Bay ; lat. 37° 25' N,, long. 71° 40' W. ; 1700 fathoms ; blue mud (dredged).

Melinnopsis atlantica, n. sp.

Station 45. Off the North American coast; lat. 38° 34' N., long. 72° 10' W. ; 1240 fathoms ; blue mud (dredged).

Harmothoe benthaliana, n. sp. Nephthys phyllobranchia, n. sp. Lumbriconereis punctata, n. sp.

Eunice cerstedi, Stimpson. Spioclicetopterus sp. Praxilla occidentalis, n. sp.



Station 47. Off the North American coast; lat. 41° 14' N., long. 65° 45' W. ; 1340 fathoms ; blue mud (dredged).

Laranda longa, Webster. Lumbriconereis ehlersi, n. sp. Aricia norvegica, Sars. Aricidea fragilis, Webster.

Notomastus agassizii, u. sp. Maldane sp.

Myriochele Jieeri, Mgrn., var. Thelepus sp.

Terehellides stroemi, Sars.

Station 48. Nova Scotia; lat. 43° 4' N., long. 64° 5' W. ; 51 fathoms; rock (dredged).

Eusyllis tubifex, Gosse. ' Thelepus cincinnatus, 0. Fabricius,

var. canadensis, nov.

Station 49. Off Halifax ; lat. 43° 3' N., long. 63° 39' W. ; 85 fathoms ; gravel, stones (dredged).

Euphrosyne borealis, CErsted. Lcetmonice producta, Grube, var. assimilis, nov.

Nereis pelagica, Linnaeus. Potarnilla torelli, Malmgren. Protula americana, n. sp.

Station 50. Off North American coast; lat. 42° 8' N., long. 63° 39' W. ; 1250 fathoms ; blue mud (dredged).

Chcetozone benihaliana, n. sp.

Station 63. Mid Atlantic; lat. 35° 29' N., long. 50° 53' W. ; 2750 fathoms; red clay (trawled).

Amphicteis gunneri, Sars, var. atlantica, nov.

Eupista darwini, n. sp., var., Gr. Lanassa benihaliana, n. sp.

Ehlersiella atlantica, n. sp.

Station 70. West of the Azores; lat. 38° 25' N., long. 35° 50' W. ; 1675 fathoms; Globigerina ooze (trawled).

Lcetmonice producta, Grube, var. xvilleinoesi, nov., B, C, D.

Station 73. Off the Azores ; lat. 38° 30' N.,