Earthworms of the Vienna Museum. 119 
paradoxus. Ifthe number of the glands were constantly the 
same the character would have more importance. 
With regard to the prostomium, I quite agree with Perrier 
that the moditications of this alone are not sufficient to base 
generic characters upon. In view of the close resemblances 
in the clitellum, sete, nephridia, and genitalia, between Rhino-- 
drilus Gulielmi and Anteus heterostichon, and the considerable 
differences between the several species of each genus, it is 
difficult, I think, to maintain the two genera. 
Anieus also shows resemblances to Geoscoles which nearly, 
if not quite, amount to generic identity. 
The divergence of the sete posteriorly which occurs in 
Anteus heterostichon is a new character in Anteus, but is one 
which characterizes Geoscoler—at least Ceoscolex maximus ; 
another character of Geoscoler maximus, which I shall refer 
to again in describing that species, is shared by Anteus and 
Lhinodrilus—that is, the ornamentation of the sete; the 
clitellar setee, it is true, are not different from the rest, but 
neither are they in Anteus gigas (2). Geoscolex, however, is 
distinguished by the long sperm-sacs, of which there is only 
one pair, by the muscular atrium, by the ventral nephridio- 
pores, and the absence of any specialization i in the nephridia 
of the anterior segments, and by the single pair of calcife- 
rous glands. In the meantime, therefore, I should prefer 
to retain the genus Geoscolex as distinct, but to merge 
Anteus and Rhinodrilus *, 
(2) Geoscolex maximus, I’. 8. Leuckart. 
(Pl VEE ates. <2 ae 8.) 
Geoscolex maximus, F. 8, Leuckart, Zool. Bruchstiicke, Heft ii. 
Titanus brasiliensis, Perrier, Nouv. Arch. Mus, t. viii. p. 57. 
There is a single specimen of a worm which I refer to this 
species 3 itis labelled “Lumbricus paucisetis,” and was collec- 
ted near the river Patia, in Colombia. 
‘The specimen measures 264 inches in length by 18 millim. 
* JT may mention in connexion with the prostomium (so-called) of 
Rhinodrilus that I have recently investigated a species of Diacheta with 
a similar process, which proves to be an evaginable tube lying in a diver- 
ticulum of the buccal cavity just in front of and beneath the brain. 
Vaillant’s account of the prostomium in Rhinodrilus agrees with my 
observations upon “ Thamnodrilus” and upon the Diacheta just referred 
to. Ido not think that the presence of this structure can be regarded as 
of generic importance in either case ; the fact of its occurrence in species 
of two genera widely removed though certainly belonging to the same 
family is against regarding this “ trompe’ ” as of special importance for 
sy stematic purposes, 
