ENCHYTRAEIDAE 



253 



The penial body constitutes a subspherical mass about 200/u, by 250/^1; it is sur- 

 rounded by a strong muscular capsule, and contains much elongated gland cells as well 

 as a stroma or scaffolding of muscular or connective tissue strands. 



The spermathecae of these specimens agree with Michaelsen's corrected description 

 (Michaelsen, 1905 a). I made a ver}' considerable number of series of sections from the 

 five batches of specimens of this worm, and in 

 describing them my notes more than once say 

 that the duct is marked off from the ampulla ; 

 but from drawings made at the same time 

 this marking off appears to be due, as in 

 Michaelsen's specimens, to a kinking at this 

 place. In other examples the short, some- 

 what bent duct soon widens, its high colum- 

 nar epithelium becomes gradually lower, and 

 without distinct demarcation the duct be- 

 comes the ampulla. The ectal end of the duct 

 is surrounded by a crown of gland cells, rela- 

 tively smaller than in L. lineatus, and slightly 

 lobed; the cells composing this mass are, as 

 usual, epithelial cells of the duct lining, greatly 

 elongated, extending outwards far beyond the 

 muscular investment of the duct. 



The copulatory glands are, as in Michaelsen's specimens, in segments xiv, xv 

 and xvi. 



I have previously (p. 237) described the degenerative changes which are very fre- 

 quently found affecting the internal organs in this species. 



Michaelsen (1905 a) described from New Amsterdam Island a var. Robinson of this 

 species, characterized by its smaller size (12-16 mm.) and by the penial body being 

 divided into two lobes by a transverse cleft, as well as, apparently, by the shorter 

 nephridial duct. In my specimens the length is graduated from 45 mm. down to 1 1 mm. ; 

 I did not notice among the shorter specimens the other distinctive features mentioned 

 by Michaelsen, but I cannot affirm their absence. 



Some time ago I suggested (1922), without having any direct acquaintance with 

 L. maximus, that it might be identical with L. lineatus. Now, after having at my disposal 

 a large number of examples, I do not think it is, though it is very closely related. The 

 arrangement of the gland cells in the superficial epithelium in regular transverse rows is 

 suggestive of identity, and also the wide variability in the proportions of the male 

 funnel in different specimens. Indeed, bearing in mind the variability of L. lineatus, the 

 only distinction I can point to is in the spermathecae, and even here the difference is by 

 no means so clear-cut as one could desire ; in neither species is the duct sharply marked 

 off from the ampulla ; but the form of the ampulla is spindle-shaped in lineatus, more 

 swollen, on the whole, and more irregular, and the duct relatively narrower, in 



Fig. 6. Lmnbricillus maximus; male funnel as cut 

 in one of the sections, showing the relatively very 

 broad rim. x 210. 



