4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 75 



extra-provincial areas. P. houlleti and P. rrVintoshi were included and 

 P. campanulata, P. posthuma, and E. levis^ were omitted. 

 Later Stephenson (1924) described two more species: 



Drawida fluviatilis _ Yaungwhe. 



Ramiella parva Yaungwhe. 



In a recent series of papers Gates (1925-1927) has added the 

 following : 



Drawida caerulea Nyaunglebin. 



Drawida gracilis Rangoon. 



Drawida longatria Rangoon. 



Drawida peguana Rangoon. 



Drawida rangoonensis Rangoon. 



Drawida rara Rangoon. 



Drawida tecta Yaungwhe. 



Pontodrilus bermudensis Kadonkani. 



Notoscolex birmanicus Maymyo. 



Pheretima anomala Rangoon. 



Pheretima elongata Rangoon. 



Pheretima hawayana Taungyi. 



Pheretima houlleti Rangoon. 



Pheretima insolita Rangoon. 



Pheretima planata Rangoon. 



Octochaetus birmanicus Rangoon. 



Eutyphoeus peguanus. Rangoon. 



Eutyphoeus rarus Rangoon. 



Eutyphoeus spinulosus Bassein. 



Pontoscolex corethrurus Rangoon. 



In an appendix to a short paper on a species of Notoscolex Gates 

 (19276) listed 42 worms from the Province. This included P. m^intoshi 

 but not P. campanulata. The paper had been written early in 1926, 

 but owing to a series of mischances had not been published until after 

 the appearance of the paper in which P. campanulata was restored to 

 specific status. 



The present paper contains descriptions of 14 new species listed 

 below, and notes on two known species: » 



Drawida constricta _ Mandalay. 



Drawida flexa Kawkareik. 



Drawida tumida Mouhnein. 



Notoscolex depressus Maymyo. 



Notoscolex lunatus _ Maymyo. 



Pheretima mimda Lashio. 



Pheretima ornata Lashio. 



Octochaetus lunatus Mandalay. 



Eutyphoeus bifovis Mandalay. 



Eutyphoeus constrictus - Meiktila. 



Eutyphoeus excavatus Meiktila. 



Eutyphoeus hastatus Prome. 



Eutyphoeus planatus Prome. 



Eutyphoeus similis Kawkareik. 



2 This species was founded for a single specimen which was so poorly preserved that only the external 

 characters were described. The absence of genital markings indicates that the worm was also immature. 

 The species must therefore be considered invalid. 



