Zoology.-] NATURAL HISTORY OF VICTORIA. \_AnneUda. 



with astouislimg rapidity when disturbed. Neither Dr. Baird nor 

 other subsequent writers can be justified in uniting the genera 

 Megascolex and Perichceta. if Schmarda be coiTect in statins: that 

 in his genus the setaj go quite round the body, and in his P. 

 leucocjjda from Ceylon he even says — " Die Riickenborsten sind 

 etwas starker als die der Bauchseite." Schmarda is fully borne 

 out in this by Dr. Grube in his description and figure of Perichceta 

 Tahitensis, from Tahiti, in his essay on the " Anneliden " in the 

 " Reise der Osterreichischen Freggate Novara." Under any cir- 

 cumstances it is clear that our Austrahan species approaches more 

 nearly to Templeton's genus, and cannot belong to Perichceta, 

 which seems chstinct from Megascolex by its smaller size, much 

 fewer body rings, and fewer and much larger setigerous papillae. 

 Still, as Templetou says, his Megascolex has 100 setigerous papillae 

 on each ring, while ours has only eight, disposed in four pau-s as 

 in Lumbiicus, I am constrained to use a special generic title Megas- 

 colides for the present form, and make it the type of a distinct 

 genus, which only differs as far as I know now from Lumbriciis in 

 its great size, very much more numerous rings, and the clitellae 

 formed of three separate short bands, not going round the body, but 

 being confined to the ventral side. 



The setae are extremely diflficult to see and coimt, on most 

 specimens, from their extreme minuteness ; a slight brown speck 

 showing under a lens on the lighter flesh-color skin the places of 

 insertion of the setae and position of the rows in which, after great 

 trouble, I have satisfied myself the setse are alone developed, is a 

 great help in counting them. But, as I find on most of the rings 

 several other exactly sknilar brown specks, 15 to 18 on the mid- 

 ridge of each ring, those of one ring alternating irregularly with 

 those of the adjoining rings between the tme setigerous ones, 

 forming the four pafrs of longitudinal rows, Imt not really containing 

 setse, I have a strong impression that these may have been counted 

 as setae also by Templeton in his Megascolex, and it is not im- 

 possible that the longitudinal muscular plication (which also is absent 

 on the back) may have been confounded with the slight papillary 

 swellings from which the setae arise. Furthermore, Dr. Bah'd, 

 observing that all Schmarda's worms from the same locality as 



[23] 



