Cayley's remark that the formula by which the genus of a surface, according to Clebsch's definition, may presumably be computed leads to a negative number in the case of a cone, or a developable surface, or a ruled surface in general, has great importance in the history of the theory. But it would appear, from various indications, that, for a developable surface at least, it is more often quoted than read. I have thought therefore that the following simplifying remarks may have a use. Cayley uses formulae, due to Salmon and Cremona, without reference to the memoir where these are given in detail. Of two of these, for the number of tangents of a curve which meet it again, and for the number of triple points of the nodal curve, proofs by the theory of correspondence are extant; for the present purpose it is only necessary to have the sum of these two numbers. I do not know whether it has been remarked that there exists a remarkable formula for this sum, very similar to, and including the ordinary formula for the number of triple points of a general ruled surface (and like this probably capable of a direct proof by the theory of correspondence). For the genus of the nodal curve, deduced by Cayley from the Salmon-Cremona formulae, a proof by the theory of correspondence (in the general case, sufficient for the purpose in hand, in which i = τ = δ = δ′ = 0) is added here, which seems to have a certain interest.