CHINESE EARTHWORMS — GATES 445 



out the postclitellar segments. In one of these worms there are on 

 the ducts of two of the spermathecae a number of vesicular out- 

 growths similar to those recorded by Michaelsen and Stephenson 

 from P. pingL 



The British Museum specimens are not labeled, except for the 

 notation "P. fiouUetP on the invoice, but they were forwarded by 

 Dr. C. C. A. Monro, of the British Museum, in reply to a request for 

 Stephenson's specimens of P. houlleti from Nanking. The worms 

 are characterized by the presence of setae in the male pore invagi- 

 nations and by the posterior location of the spermathecal stalked 

 glands but differ from other specimens of P. guillehni in the pres- 

 ence of glandular material on the parietes just median to the ectal 

 ends of the prostatic ducts. No definite genital markings were noted 

 in the male pore invaginations. The first functional dorsal pore is 

 on 12/13 on each of the four specimens, but on 2 specimens there is a 

 porelike marking on 11/12. 



The specimens of P. ichaiigensis have been compared side by side 

 with Stephenson's specimens of P. houlleti {=P. guillelmi) and with 

 the specimens of P. guillehm. The only difference that was found 

 was the presence in both specimens of P. ichangensis, in xviii median 

 to the prostatic duct, of a stalked gland opening to the exterior by a 

 pore on a rather indefinite genital marking in the male pore invagi- 

 nation. Eetention of P. ichangensis on the basis of such an unimpor- 

 tant characteristic can scarcely be justified. 



Michaelsen's 1899 specimens of Amynfas hoidleti appear to have 

 been lost ; at least they are not in the Hamburg Museum. The Tien- 

 tsin record is based on a simple "Fundnotiz" without description. It 

 is accordingly impossible to determine what species Michaelsen actu- 

 ally had, but in the absence of any valid record of the occurrence of 

 P. houlleti in north China and in view of the confusion of P. guil- 

 lelmi with P. houlleti it seems possible that the Tientsin specimens 

 were P. guiUelmi. 



P. guillemi is distinguished from P. houlleti with which it has been 

 confused by the restriction of the male pore invaginations to the pari- 

 etes, the conformation of the male porophore, and the presence of 

 setae within the male pore invagination. 



PHERETIMA HAWAYANA (Rosa) 



1891. Perichaeta hawayana Rosa, Ann. Nat. Hofmus. Wien, vol. 6, p. 396 (type 

 locality: Hawaii; type in the Vienna Museum). 



1896. Perichaeta hawayana Beddabd, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1896, p. 201 (Hong- 

 kong). 



1912. Pheretima hawayana Stephenson, Rec. Indian Mus., vol. 7, p. 276 (Teng- 

 yueh, Yunnan). 



