June, 1910. The hish Nafia-a/ist, 105 



IvUMINOUS WORMS IN IRELAND. 



BY RKV. HILDERIC FRIEND. 



Are there luminous worms in Ireland ? I believe there 

 are ; and am therefore placing some facts before the readers 

 of the Irish NaUcralist in the hope that they will direct their 

 attention to the subject, and do what they can to prove that 

 my impressions are well founded. In "A Catalogue of British 

 Worms " published in 1865 by order of the Trustees of the 

 British Museum, I find the following entry : — 



* Of the following I have seen no specimens, L. phosphoreiis, spinets 

 mostly single throughout, tetrastichous ; vulvae on the fifteenth segment ; 

 clitellus with four segments commencing with the 13th ; body some- 

 what flattened behind. Length 15"'. 



Lumbricus phosphoreus, Diiges in Ann. des sc. nat,^ ser. 2, viii., 17 and 

 24. Gnibe. 



Hab. Boggy ground. 



Obs. The information on which this species is introduced is unsatis- 

 factor}'. At the Meeting of the British Association at Cork, in 1843, 

 Dr. AUnian exhibited "specimens of an annelid which he discovered 

 some years ago in the bogs of the south of Ireland, and which was the 

 cause of a luminous appearance. It was closely allied to the earthworm ; 

 when irritated it gave out a phosphorescent light, which was also much 

 increased when the animal was exposed to the vapour of alcohol. The 

 light was of the peculiar green colour so usual in the phosphorescence of 

 living animals. The Rev. F. B, Clarke had also found these annelids in 

 the bogs of Connaught." {Trans. Brit. Assoc, 1843, p. 76.) At a meeting 

 of the Lit. and Phil. vSociety of Liverpool, Nov, 14, 1853, .Air. Henry Cox 

 exhibited an earthworm which was phosphorescent (^Proceedings, No. viii., 



p. 57)-' 



Thus far, then, we have the testimony of Dr. Allman, and 

 the Rev. F. B. Clarke, that luminous worms have been found 

 in the bogs of Connaught, and the bogs of the south of 

 Ireland. Can any light be thrown on these statements ? 



First let us examine the definition given 2ho\^ oi L. phos- 

 phoreus. A single glance suffices to show (i) that it is 

 inaccurate, and (2) that it is not a I^umbricus. The ' clitellus 

 with four segments commencing with the 13th ' shows that it 

 cannot be placed among the I^umbricidae, and makes it 

 impossible to look for the ' vulvae on the 15th segment/ while 

 no genuine Lumbricus has ' spinets mostly single throughout.' 



The position of the girdle or clitellus, however, supplies a 

 clue, and we turn from I^umbricus to Microscolex. Here we 



A 



