EARTHWORMS 425 



formed the basis of my original description of the species, I found the following 

 characters. The length of one was 76 mm. There are a row of four papillae to the 

 inside of each male pore. The setae on segments 3 — 7 are particularly strong. I 

 found setae on the last segment of the clitellum, i.e. 16. The sperm sacs have a 

 constricted extremity. The spermiducal glands are long, extending through segments 

 17 — 22. The spermathecae are in segments 6 — 8; on one side of the body was an 

 additional pouch in segment 9. A second individual was much the same, but had only 

 three papillae by each male pore and no traces of an additional spermatheca. In my 

 original description of Perichaeta viaitritiana 1 described only two pairs of spermathecae 

 in segments 7, 8. I cannot now lay my hands on that specimen. 1 may however 

 observe that a renewed examination of one of the worms which I originally referred to 

 barbadensis, seems to have its two pairs of spermathecae in 7, 8, and not as I stated in 

 6, 7. In any case the difference does not seem to me to be important. With the 

 present species will have to be merged I think Perichaeta cupulifera. There are at 

 least no differences of great importance to distinguish that form from Dehra Dun. 

 There is to be seen the same kind of range in the variability of the papillae which are 

 from as small a number as only one in front of and behind each male pore to twelve or 

 so in the neighbourhood of those pores. 



Dr Michaelsen thinks that his Perichaeta pallida is not to be confused with 

 Perichaeta hawayana. He bases this distinction upon the fact that in pallida the 

 anterior setae are not much enlarged, as they are in hawayana, and that the male pores 

 are more closely approximated. As to the former it would be necessary to separate 

 from barbadensis one of the individuals which I have described above as belonging to 

 that " species " if this opinion is correct. There is at least quite as much reason for 

 uniting this species with the series concerning which the present remarks are offered, 

 as for including Rosa's P. amazonica. Rosa says nothing about the increased size of 

 the anterior setae. The fact that the clitellum has none will not I hope, after the 

 remarks contained in the present paper, be considered as sufficient to discriminate the 

 species. 



In Dr Michaelsen's description of Perichaeta inandhorensis there are no salient 

 points which serve to discriminate it from the present species. It has larger setae on 

 segments 2 — 9 : the caeca have the crenated appearance below that is at least often 

 found in hazuayana. There is one papilla near each male pore ; the three spermathecae 

 occupy the same segments ; the spermiducal glands are without the terminal sac. 

 The sperm sacs are divided (as in some individuals of the present species) by a 

 constriction. There is in short nothing of importance in the description which warrants 

 a separation. 



55—2 



