o2 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 
funnels in segment x. As there was only a single pair of 
sperm sacs—racemose in character—in segment xi., there 
is an increased probability of the presence of only a single 
pair of testes. Michaelsen did not observe the testes or 
sperm sacs or funnels. 
The atria are lobate, they resemble in fact thgse of 
Pericheta,; they are very solid in appearance, not being of 
the loose texture often seen in Pericheta. Michaelsen is 
somewhat indefinite about the structure of the atria; he 
describes them as “zwei lange kolbige Prostata-driisen.” 
These open on to the xviith segment; they are provided 
with penial setw. There is no need for me to give any 
description of the penial sets, since my observations agree 
fully with those of Michaelsen. 
There is but one pair of spermatothecew, these are large, 
and lie in segment ix. Each consists of a pouch, which is 
somewhat bifid, and which communicates with the exterior 
by means of a thick-walled duct; into this opens a diverti- 
culum, which is as long as the pouch. It also consists of a 
duct and a distal swollen end, which is mulberry shaped. 
The diverticulum lies in the segment in front of that which 
contains the pouch, as is so often the case in earthworms. 
The only difference of importance between the above 
description and that of Michaelsen is in the prostomium ; it 
is possible that imperfect preservation may account for this. 
The close similarity in the penial sete, and the fact that 
there is but one pair of spermatothecze, seems to remove all 
doubt as to the identity of the species described by myself 
with that described by Michaelsen. It is, however, doubtful 
whether the worm should be referred to the genus Crypto- 
drilus. The principal objection to including it in that genus 
is the position of the male pores; in Cryptodrilus they are on . 
segment xviii. If other species turn up in-which the male 
pores are upon the same segment, and which have lobate 
atria, I should separate them as a distinct genus; at present 
a single instance of a divergence in the position of the male 
pores may be fairly regarded as an exception, and the worm 
may be left in the’ genus to which Michaelsen doubtfully 
assigned it. The specimen was collected in Valdivia. 
