CALIFORNIA EU Hit I I.m.K. 23 



below are Microscole.v dubius of Rosa and Eadrilns diibius of Fletcher. T will fii'st 

 refer to the latter. Fletcher's description is sufficiently minute to allow us with cer- 

 tainty to refer it to the genus, but the details are wanting to such an extent, that it is 

 dillicult to uiuliisluiid its further relationshi[). There are three points in the descrip- 

 tion which are of special interest. 



1. Absence of speruiatheca'. 



2. The l)eginniiig of the nephridia in v. 



.S. The junction of the spermduct and the prostate half-way between the 

 glandulnr part and tlu' body-wall. 



As to the tu'st of these the spermatheca^ may be really wanting or it may have 

 a substitute similar to the one found in Ddtniwi dcgaan as described below. At any 

 rate this character brings the species EadrUns duhiuti close to Deltnaui decjana as well 

 as to Beddard's Microscokx Poultoni. 



The beginning of the nephridia in somite v brings E. dubiuH close to Beddard's 

 species but separates it distinctly from Ddtanln dc.ijuas in which the nephridia com- 

 mence in ii, as will be shown below. 



The third character requires to be reaffirmed and described more in detail. 

 The joining of the spermduct and the prostate is always of the utmost imi)ortance and 

 interest and a mere general statement will not suffice for properly characterizing a 

 species, especially when the group is little known. 



Kosa at first considered E. dnhia>i to be identical with his Jlicroscole.i: mod- 

 esiiis, but a later investigation of new material convinced him of the distinct char- 

 acter of the species and he then describes both as two diflferent species of Microscolex. 

 It must therefore be considered certain that the deltoid arrangement of the ventral 

 setie does not occur in Jlicroscole.v inode>>fn!<. In regard to the respective species of 

 E. dubius and 31. dubius described by Rosa and Fletcher, I am not fnlly persuaded 

 that both actually belong to the same species, and I believe that nothing short of an 

 actual comparison of the specimens can decide if they do so. 



Beddard has at two difTerent times described species of the genus Microscolex, 

 but which difl:'er from each other in several im[)ortant points. Mkroscole.v novre-zelaa- 

 dke resembles the old genus Rhododrilus in the independent opening of the spermduct. 

 Instead of referring the above species to Microscolex, and merge Rhododrilus in the 

 latter genus, I consider it more proper and convenient to retain Rhododrilus and re- 

 fer M. novre-zdandlai to it, as the independent opening of the spermduct appeal's to 

 me of sufficient ini^wrtance to be considered a generic character. Another species, 

 Microscolex algeriensis, also described by Beddard, can, I believe, best be retained in 

 the genus Microscolex, as it evidently possesses the settB parallel throughout the 

 ventral side of the clitellum. 



Microscolex Poulfoni however is probably a true Deltania and Beddard's excellent 

 description leaves no important characters in doubt. 



In his description of Microscolex Poultoni, Betldai'd refers especially to the 

 deltoid arrangement of the setiB in the clitellial somites. He .says: "From segment 



