138 Prof. W. B. Benham on 



uh'ginosus." Nevertheless it is evident that it is an Acantlio- 

 drihis, but imjiossible to say wlietlior it belongs to any species 

 more recently and more carefully described ; it seems best in 

 such a case to leave the matter alone, and to regard it as a 

 distinct species. 



(2) " L. cnmpestrisy — There are three bottles so labelled, 

 which I will indicate by the letters <?, /-», c. 



(a) Contains two individuals collected in Dunedin ; they are 

 well-preserved mature worms, which are at once recognizable 

 as belonging to that curious Acanthodrilid which Beddard * 

 termed Neodrilu-i^ a genus which he now refuses to recognize 

 as distinct from Acanthodrilus^. It seems to me that the 

 characters of A^. monocystis are every bit as distinctive and 

 important as those upon which he founds the genus Octo- 

 cho'tus. At any rate, Hutton's worm is characterized by the 

 single spermiducal gland, the single spermatheca, and other 

 features, a detailed account of which was published by me in 

 1892 J. The worm is common around Dunedin, and, as a 

 matter of fact, the very first earthworm I picked up in the 

 bush round the town was A^. monocystis ^ from which Eluttou's 

 type does not differ. 



As will be seen below, it is impossible to retain Hutton's 

 specific name, since he has confused under it two distinct 

 worms. 



{h) Labelled " Water of Lcith," contained a single indi- 

 vidual and a portion of a worm, which are also Neodrilus. 



(c) Labelled " Wellington," contains three individuals, all 

 of which agree one with another in external characters, viz. 

 the prostomium reaches to the first intersegmental groove, 

 and is traversed by an indistinct transverse furrow ; the 

 clitellum covers the segments 27 to 32, while the twenty-sixth 

 exhibits some glandular modifications ; the tubercula puber- 

 tates are on the segments 28 to 31 ; the first dorsal ])ore is 

 between the segments 6/7. With the exception of the last 

 feature, and in the fact that the worms are slightly smaller 

 than usual (viz. 1| to 2 inches), these specimens agree with 

 the descriptions of Lumhricus ruhellus. 



A reference to Hutton's description shows that he had both 

 Neodrilus and Lumhricus before him, as he says " Colour 



* Beddard, " Observations on the Structural Characters of certain new 

 or little-liiiowu Eartliworms," Proc. lioy. Soc. Ediub. 1887, vol. xiv. 

 p. 157. 



t ' MonopTaph of tJie Order Oligocliaeta,' 1895, 



J Benham, " Notes on Two Acanthodrlloid Earthworms from New 

 Zealand," (^uart. Journ, Micr. Sci. vol. xxiii. p. 289. 



