Earthworms of the Vienna Museum. 119 



paradoxus. If the 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 modifications of this alone are not sufficient to base 

 generic characters upon. In view of the close resemblances 

 in the clitcllum, seta", ncphridia, and genitalia, between Rhino- 

 dn'Ius Gulichni and Anteus hete.rostichon, and the considerable 

 differences between the several species of each genus, it is 

 ditficult, I think, to maintain the two genera. 



A/itcus also shows resemblances to Geoscolex winch nearly, 

 if not quite, amount to generic identity. 



The divergence of the setaj posteriorly which occurs in 

 Anteus hctevostichon is a new character in Anteus, but is one 

 which characterizes Geoscolex — at least Geoscolex inaximus • 

 another character of Geoscolex maximus, which I shall refer 

 to again in describing that species, is shared by Anteus and 

 lihinodrilus — that is, the ornamentation of the setae ; the 

 clitellar seta*, it is true, are not different from the rest, but 

 neither are they in Anteus gigas (?). 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 in the nephridia 

 of the anterior segments, and by the single pair of ealcife- 

 rous glands. In the meantime, therefore, 1 should prefer 

 to retain the genus Geoscolex as distinct, but to merge 

 Anteus and lihinodrilus *. 



(2) Geoscolex maximns, F. S. Leuckart. 

 (PI. VII. tigs. 2 and 8.) 



Geoscolex maximns, F. S. Leuckai-t, 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 ; it is labelled '''' Lumhricus jioucisetis,^^ and was collec- 

 ted near the river Patia, in Colombia. 



The specimen measures 26^ inches in length by 18 millim. 



* I may mention in connexion with the prostomium (so-called) of 

 lihinodrilus that I liave recently iuvestigated a species of Diachota -with 

 a similar process, whicli proves to he an evagiuable 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 lihinodrilus agrees with my 

 observations upon " Thamnodrilus "' and upon the Diachetn j list referrecl 

 to. I do not thiuk that the presence of this stuictm-e 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 " tranipe " ns of special importance for 

 systematic purposes. 



