DESCRIPTIONS OF GENERA AND SPECIES 309 



spermiducal glands and paired nephrirlia ; but the above-mentioned species has 

 ' flattened ' glands. P. yarraensis again, and one or two allied forms, combine the 

 characters of my two genera, Diporochaeta and Anisoc haeta ; for they have a reduced 

 number of setae on the anterior segments together with coiled spermiducal glands and 

 paired nephridia. It is, in fact, as hard, if not harder, to introduce order into the 

 arrangement of the Australian Perichaetidae as to classify in a reasonable way the 

 Australian Cryptodrilidae. It is possible that a microscopic examination of the 

 spermiducal glands may show that some glands apparently of the tubular type 

 characteristic of the Acanthodrilidae are not really so. In the meantime it seems to 

 me to be legitimate to retain Diporochaeta. 

 The following species are incertae sedis : 



(1) Pheretima montana, KINB., Otahiti. 



(2) californica, KINB., California. 



(3) Lampito mauritii, KINB., Mauritius. 



(4) Megascolex lineatus, HUTTON, New Zealand. 



(5) Perichaeta coemlea, PERKIER, Philippines. 



(6) luzonica, PERRIEK, Philippines. 



(7) Megascolex sylvestris, HUTTON, New Zealand. 



(8) Perichaeta corticis, KINB., Hawai. 



(9) Megascolex antarcticus, BAIRD, New Zealand. 



As to the first of these species, it is stated to have a clitellum of five segments beginning 

 with the thirteenth ; this suggests Megascolex rather than Perichaeta, but there is no certainty 

 that the worm belongs to either genus ; it may possibly be a Perionyx for instance. 



Pheretima californica should be, from its habitat, a true Perichaeta, for, according to our present 

 knowledge, no Perichaetidae except Pei-ichaeta (s.s.) live in America; but, if we are to trust KINBERG'S 

 description of the clitellum as consisting of four segments, its reference to Pericltaeta is less likely. 

 The species too is remarkable for its occurrence on the sea-shore near San Francisco. I am 

 disposed to think that it may prove to be another genus altogether. 



Lampito mauritii has also a clitellum of four segments : it may possibly be identical with my 

 Perichaeta mauritiana, in which case there will be an error on KINBERG'S part in the enumeration 

 of the segments of the clitellum. 



Megascolex lineatus of HUTTON is too small to be my Diporochaeta intermedia ; but there is no 

 reason why it should not be congeneric with that species, or, for the matter of that, why it should be. 

 The genus cannot be fixed with certainty. 



Perichaeta coemlea of PERRIEH is altered by VAILLANT (6, p. 71) to Megascolex perrieri, on the 

 grounds that we have already M. coeruleus of TEMPLETON ; as, however, I have shown that the 

 latter=P. leucocycla of SCHMARDA, there would be no need for a change were P. coerulea recognizable. 

 As, however, P. coerulea is too imperfectly described, it must be for the present excluded from 

 a systematic revision of the group. The only positive fact given about it is that the ovidueal 

 pores are paired, and that the setae are equidistant ; the first fact suggests Megascolex, the second 

 Perichaeta, 



Perichaeta luzonica has a ventral gap bordered by larger setae. It might be my P. acystis, but the 

 data are not sufficient to refer it without doubt to the genus Perichaeta, 



