these Figures relative to the detections (Figures 2-16) demonstrates that, judging from optical and X-ray morphology alone. one would be hard pressed to determine [*a priori*]{} which objects will be detectable in the FUV and which will not. For instance, some large, old optical shell remnants are seen (SNR 0450-709, Figure 2) and some are not (SNR 0453-672, Figure 19, panel 3). Perhaps more telling, several of the most solid detections with $\fuse$ are unimpressive optical and/or X-ray SNRs (e.g., SNR 0454.5-6713, Figure 4; SNR 0506-680, Figure 6) while some non-detections are relatively strong optical and/or X-ray sources (e.g., SNR 0455-687, Figure 20 top panel; SNR 0519-697, Figure 21 second panel). There are several SNRs with apparent central X-ray emission consistent with ejecta in both the detected and non-detected samples, but it is not clear we are seeing FUV emission associated with the ejecta in any case, so this does not appear to be a significant factor in FUV detectability.

In Figures 25 and 26, we study some systematics of the sample. In Figure 25, we show histograms of the detections and non-detections as a function of angular size. Since many objects are non-circular, we have simply adopted the average 