No. 3.] ZHE EMBRYOLOGY OF THE EARTHWORM. 393 
respect, apart from all differences of terminology, my views 
differ from those of Kleinenberg, and will prevent confusion in 
the use of terms. I may add lastly that some of my conclusions, 
especially those relating to the origin of the nephridia, have 
been criticised by a number of writers, notably by Bergh (No. 8), 
whose remarks are, however, couched in such terms as to render 
a reply unnecessary. A careful re-examination of the whole 
subject has not essentially altered my original view, though I 
am ready to admit having perhaps been somewhat too positive 
in my statements as to the origin of the nephridia. I trust 
that the present paper will at least present clearly the evidence 
on which my conclusions were based. 
PART II.— DESCRIPTIVE. 
I have examined the development of three species to which I 
shall refer respectively as Lumbricus terrestris, L. communis, and 
L. fetidus, though the latter two forms are placed by most 
recent writers in the genus A//olobophora, and the specific name 
communis has been discarded.! 
The three species agree closely in the general outlines of 
their development, as far as I have been able to follow them, 
1Vejdovsky [No. 44] gives the following names to these species; I add also a 
partial synonymy, as given by the same author, which will suffice to identify the 
forms I have studied. 
1. Lumbricus terrestris L., = L. agricola Hoffmeister. 
2. Allolobophora cyanea, = Enterion cyaneum Sav., = Lumbricus communis cyaneus 
Hofim., = Allolobophora turgida Eisen. 
3. Allolobophora fetida Eisen = Enterion fetidum Sav., = Lumbricus fetidus Dugés, 
= L. olidus Hoffm. 
According to Vejdovsky the form studied by Kleinenberg has the following 
synonymy : — 
Allolobophora carnea, = Enterion carneum Sav.,= Lumbricus trapezoides Dug., 
= L. communis carneus Hoftm., = Allolobophora mucosa Eisen. 
Ude, however, accepts Eisen’s names for the two species included under Hoff- 
meister’s “ Z. communis,’ and in view of this disagreement I have preferred to use 
the specific name communis. I prefer to apply the generic term Lumédricus to the 
three species I have studied, partly for the sake of brevity, but more especially because 
Eisen’s division of the earlier genus Lzmébricus into Allolobophora and “ Lumbricus” 
is based upon a trifling anatomical distinction which does not correspond to the 
differences I have observed in the mode of development — z.e., the two species of 
“ Allolobophora” (L. communis and L. fetidus) differ somewhat in development, and 
one of them agrees precisely with Z. cerrestris, which is a typical “ Lumbricus” in 
Eisen’s sense, 
