118 Mr. F. E. Beddard on the 
and Microcheta*, a proposition with which I cannot agree. 
No doubt there is a close affinity between Antes and Micro- 
cheta; but the points of difference are numerous and, coliec- 
tively at least, of considerable importance. Thus in Mecro- 
cheta the sete are not ornamented, even those of the clitellar 
segments; the nephridia differ from those of Anteus; the 
single calciferous gland is a dilatation of the cesophagus ; the 
sperm-sacs are not at all like those of Anteus; and, finally, 
the spermatheca of Mverocheta are a number of small sacs 
situated behind the segments which these structures usually 
occupy. Benham has suggested 7 that similar spermathece 
may have been overlooked by Perrier in Anteus; they do 
not, I am convineed, exist in that genus. With Lthinodrilus, 
however, Anteus shows such close resemblances that they 
amount, in my opinion, to generic identity. 
Until the publication of Horst’s paper upon Anteus and my 
own upon Rhinodrilus Gulielmi the two genera appeared to 
be very different. We now know that the ornamentation of 
the sete and the difference between the ordinary sete and 
the clitellar sete are the same in both genera and that the 
nephridia have the same relations and strueture (there being 
an anterior and posterior series differing by the presence or 
absence of a cecum to the duet), and that the genitalia show 
no differences t. The clitellum in Rhinodrilus Gulielmi is 
neaily coextensive with that of Anteus heterostichon ; indeed 
that species of Rhinodrilus and Anteus heterostichon link 
together the more divergent forms of either genus. The only 
points in which the two genera differ are :— 
(1) The presence of a greater number of calciferous 
elands; and 
(2) The presence of an elongated prostomium in Phino- 
drilus. 
As to the first point, it may be remarked that the number 
of pairs of calciferous pouches is not the same in all species of 
Rhinodrilus ; there are six pairs in Lhinodrilus Tenkatet and 
Rhinodrilus Gulielmi, eight pairs in Léhinodrilus ecuador- 
zensis ||; we know nothing about these glands in Rhinodrilus 
* “ Annelés,” in ‘Suites 4 Buffon,’ t. iii, p. 184. 
+ “An Attempt to Classify Karthworms,” Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. 
vol. xxxi. p. 265. 
¢ Except perhaps in the presence or absence of spermathecse. In An- 
teus spermathecee have never been found; in Rhinodrilus paradoxus 
Perrier did not meet with them, but he examined only one individual ; I 
found them to be occasionally wanting in RAinodrilus Gulielmi. 
|| Benham, /oe. cit. p. 253. 
