KKPOHT OX TIIK Ul.KIUCH.K'I'A UKNIIAM. 259 



jKisterior tliiid or so tliis network lias \ery small iiicslies : the net- 

 NS'ork is continuous from segment to segment. Such a network is 

 i-aie in Tubiticids — it has bee)i described only in Bjviiirhiura, as 

 emended b}' Michaelsen (9), as well as in Jihlzodrilus /imosits, 

 Hatai (<S), and to some extent in Ji. piloi^Ks, Goodrich (7). 



The form and constitution of the network is more like that 

 figured by Hatai than of the other sj^ecies referred to, viz. : — 

 Each "latero-dorsal"and "latero- ventral" vessel fy;^.^, of which there 

 is a pair iii every segment, after reaching the body wall in these 

 post-clitellian segments, bi'eaks up into a number of anastomising 

 Ijranches, with a tendency to a longitudinal and transverse 

 arrangement. It is (]uite unlike the simpler ariangement of A'. 

 soive7'hyi, and is less elaborate than that in Ji. rocciHfd (14). 



The first nephridium occurs behind the atriopore in segments 

 xiii. and xiv. 



RnnarkK. — That this worm is closely allied to Stoic's "Ilyodrilus 

 coccineus " there can be no doubt, and thei-e appears to me a 

 certain amount of truth in Ditlevsen's criticism (6) of Michaelsen '.s 

 union of this worm with Brtuichiiira so/cfrbi/i in the genus 

 Bvaiirhinra — but T am not in a position to discuss this question 

 on the present occasion, and 1 have therefore followed Michaelsen 

 in placing the species in the genus Ih-aiu-hlnrd. I would remark, 

 however, that if the two species are distinct, a new generic name 

 must be found for " Ilyodrilus coccineus," since I/i/<)(/nlii.s was 

 used by Eisen earlier in a different sense. 



In a recent article Michaelsen lias severely criticised my geiuis 

 Taupodrilns, and denies that it is even specifically distinct from 

 B. cocciiiea. To this criticism I hope to reply after reading his 

 memoir on the Elbe Oligoclnetes, which, unfortunately, I have 

 not yet seen. Possibly, B. plcurothpca may be a \ariety of B. 

 coccinea, but till I have studied this memoir I shall allow the 

 above account to stand. 



The prei-'ent species may be diagnosed thus : — • 

 Braiichiura plenrotheca, sp. nov. 



Clueta^, dorsal bundles of ll-3 crochets, with capilliforms added 

 in anterior segments ; ventrals crochets, with upper tooth longer 

 than the lower. On segjnent xi., behind the male i)ore, a bunch 

 of copulatory cluv'tie in the sagittal plane, tlie points con\ t-rging, 

 the chiette similar in form, greater in size than the other 

 ventrals. Clitellum | x., xi., xii. ; spermathecal jmre lateral, near 

 anterior margin of x. Male efferent apparatus as in P>. coccinea, 

 but the atrium elongated o\oid, and the sperm duct opening at 

 its apex. An elaborate integumcntal blood plexus in the greater 

 part of the body. 



