118 Mr. F. E. Bcddard on the 



and Microcliata *, a proposition -vvitli wliicli I cannot agree. 

 Ko doul»t tlicrc is a close affmity between Antms and Micro- 

 chceta ; but the points of difference are numerous and, collec- 

 tively at least, of considerable importance. Thus in Micro- 

 chceta the setae are not ornamented, even those of the clitellar 

 segments; the nephridia differ from those of Anteus; the 

 Bingle calciferous gland is a dilatation of the oesophagus ; the 

 sperm-sacs are not at all like those of Anteus] and, finally, 

 the spermatheca of Microchata are a number of small sacs 

 situated behind the segments which these structures usually 

 occupy. Benhara has suggested f that similar spermatheca? 

 may have been overlooked by Perrier in Anteus \ they do 

 not, I am convinced, exist in that genus. With BhinodnJus, 

 however. Aniens shows such close resemblances that they 

 amount, in my opinion, to generic identity. 



Until the paiblication of Horst's paper upon Anteus and my 

 own upon Bkinodrilus Guliehni the two genera appeared to 

 be very different. AVe now know that the ornamentation of 

 tlie seta3 and the difference between the ordinary setaj and 

 the clitellar setffi are the same in both genera and that the 

 nephridia have the same relations and structure (there being 

 an anterior and posterior series differing by the ])resence or 

 absence of a caecum to the duct), and that the genitalia show 

 no differences +. The cliteilum in liliinodrilus Guliehni \i 

 neaily coextensive with that of Anteus heterostichon ; indeed 

 that species of Ehinodrilus 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 



glands; and 



(2) The presence of an elongated prostomium in UhinO' 



drihis. 



As to the first point, it may be remarked that the number 

 of pairs of calciferous ])ouclies is not the same in all species of 

 Bhinodrihis] there arc six ]iaiis in Bhinodrilus Tcnkatei tiud 

 Jihinodrihis Gidielmi, eight pairs in li/iinodrihis ecuador- 

 iensis |1 ; we know nothing about these glands in Rhinodrihis 



* " Annek't?," in ' Suites a J^uffon,' t. iii. p. 184. 



t " An Attempt to Classify Earthworms,'' Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci. 

 vol. xxxi. p. 265. 



X Except perhaps in the presence or absence of spermatheca?. In Au- 

 fetis spermatheca^ have never been found; in Ji/iinofln/nK paratfixi/s 

 Penier did not meet with them, but he examined only one individual ; I 

 found them to be occatiinnaliy wanting in Ji/ii/ioiiriluf (luliilmi. 



1! 15enham, Iw. lit. p. 253. 



