1907] Records of the I iidian Miiseian. 249 



the second to the stomach. I had not seen Dr. Annandale's paper 

 when I wrote my description of C. punjahensis ; and in the above 

 account of C. pellucidus I have followed my former nomenclature, 

 since it still seems to me more convenient to have separate names 

 for permanent and separate structures ; and so long as such names 

 are not taken to imply homologies I think they are unobjectionable. 

 Dr. Annandale, having access to the literature of the subject, 

 may have used his names in accordance with the practice of Euro- 

 pean writers on the genus ; though it appears that in those species 

 the oesophagus is small, and never longer than the pharynx. In 

 any case, if the terms " crop " and " stomach " are rejected, I 

 would suggest that the division between " oesophagus " and " in- 

 testine " be taken at the line between my " crop " and " stomach," 

 — not behind the " stomach " ; the difference in character of the 

 walls changes at this point, at least in the two species with which 

 I am acquainted. Detailed descriptions of the alimentary tract 

 of C. spongillce and C. sp. are not given ; but the same two dila- 

 tations, in the same relative positions, are seen in the figures of 

 both ; and in all five species the relation of the crop (or first dila- 

 tation of the oesophagus) to the sette of the sixth segment (which 

 occur about one-third the length of the crop from its posterior 

 end), and of the stomach (or second dilatation of the oesophagus) 

 to those of the seventh and eighth segments, is the same. 



The above is merely a question of nomenclature ; what follows 

 has to do not merely with nomenclature, but also with a difference 

 of interpretation, especially with regard to the appearances which 

 Annandale describes in his three forms as the clitellum. It 

 must always be dangerous to draw conclusions on a priori grounds 

 by arguing from one form to another, however closely related ; 

 and I feel that m}^ temerity is especially great when these conclu- 

 sions conflict with the interpretations given by Dr. Annandale 

 after his examination of the forms themselves. But I cannot help 

 thinking that the appearances described and figured in his two 

 papers as the clitellum of his three species are the same as those 

 I have called the zones of budding ; and that the clitellum is 

 really the site of a future division of the animal, and is not con- 

 cerned with sexual reproduction in any way. 



Reference to Annandale's figures, and a comparison with those 

 given in the present paper and those previoush^ given in the account 

 of C punjabensis, will show that the clitellum corresponds in posi- 

 tion to one of the sites of future division. Thus the clitellum is 

 stated to occupy the tenth and eleventh segments in C. bengal- 

 ensis ; the figure of this species, which shows the clitellum as 

 being behind the setae of segment 10, may be compared with the 

 anterior half of the as yet undivided animal shown in fig. 5 of the 



1 Not strictly in the case of C. bengalensis, in which the setae of the ninth segment 

 also come into relation with the stomach ; unless indeed (which I think possible) a second, 

 less permanent, constriction towards the posteiior end of the stomach in this form re- 

 presents the division between stomach and intestine in the others; the relations of the 

 setal bundles to the divisions of the alimentary tract would then be identical throughout. 



