270 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 



And the following, which need farther study, and are at 

 present unrecognisable. Those are queried whose generic 

 name is even doubtfully correct : — 



1 Pontoscolex arenicola, Schmarda. Jamaica. 



? Eurydaine insignis, Kinberg. St Joseph, Panama. 



Nitocris ( = Perichceta) gracilis, Kinberg. Rio Janeiro. 

 % Hypogceon atys, Kinb. Buenos Ayres. 

 1 Hypogceon heterostichon, Schmarda. Quito. 

 ? Lumhricus armatus, Kinb. Buenos Ayres. 

 1 Lumhricus alyattes, Kinb. Buenos Ayres. 

 1 Lumhricus tellus, Kinb. Buenos Ayres. 

 ? Lumhricus pmyip)iGola, Kinb. Monte Video. 



Mandane ( = Acanthodrilus) siagnalis, Kinb. Monte Video. 

 ? Lumhricus matutinus, Weyenberg. Argentine. 

 ? Lumhricus argentinus, Weyenb. Argentine. 

 1 Jjumhricus dissidens, Weyenb. Argentine. 

 1 Lumhricus corduvensis, Weyenb.^ Argentine. 

 ? Lumhricus luteus, Gay. Chili. 

 1 Lumhricus valdiviensis, Gay. Chili. 

 ? Lumhricus semijasciatus, Burmeister. 



II. Nearctic Region, N'. 



1. Acanthodrilus {Diplocardla) G0')nm,unis, Garman. Illinois. 



N., E., A. 



2. Plutellus heteroporus, E. P. Pennsylvania. 



3. Perichseta sp. (in hot-houses). N., 0., E., A. 



4. Tetragonurus pupa, Eisen. Canada. 



5. Allurus tetraedrus (^).^ Canada. P., N. 



1 With regard to the species described by Weyenberg ( Descripciones de 

 nuevos gusanos — Boll. Ac. Rep. Arg., pp. 213-218), it is clear that, whatever 

 they may be, the last two are not Liivibricus, since the clitellum occupies in 

 L. dissidens segments 15-18, and in L. Corduvensis 18-22, or 17-21. The 

 former species is said to have no prostomium. The first two species 7nay be 

 Lumhricus, but it is impossible to identify any of them. 



' Allurus tetraedrus must be regarded as a rather uncertain North American 

 form. I have included it in the list on the strength of a specimen kindly sent 

 to me some time since by Mr Tyrrel of the Canadian Geological Survey. 

 I examined this specimen by means of longitudinal sectiens, and identified 

 it with Allurus on account of the structure of the gizzard (see Beddard, 

 On the Anatomy of Allurus tetraedrus — Quart. Journ. Micr. Sci., vol. xxviii.). 

 But as Tetragonurus has not been anatomised, it is far IVom imjiossible that 

 that genus may prove to be identical in this particular with Allurus. The 

 sexual organs were not sufficiently developed to permit of any certain con- 



