CALIFORNIA EUDRILIDA, Te) 
No. 2. One pair, ix/x. 
One single, xv/xvi, left side. 
No. 3. One pair, ix/x. 
One pair, x/x1. 
One single, xiv/xv, right side. 
One pair, Xv/xvi. 
One pair, xvi/xvii. 
One pair, xx/xxi. 
One pair, xxi/xxil. 
No. 4. One pair, x/xi. 
One pair, xv/xyvi. 
One pair, xix/xx. 
No. 5. One pair, x/xi. 
One pair, xix/xx. 
The structure of these papillee has been referred to in connection with the 
body-wall, and apparently does not differ in the two forms. 
Argilophilus marmoratus papillifer. 
Fig. 131, A and B. 
Argilophilus marmoratus papillifer Eisen, Zoe, iy, 253, October, 1893. 
The ventral side of the somites with one single median row of ventral papillie, 
which are generally largest between the clitellar somites, diminishing gradually in 
size toward the anterior somites. The papillie of this form are generally, but not al- 
ways, more oblong than in the preceding form, where they are much more rounded. 
The clitellar papillee are frequently diamond-shaped (fig. 131). The papille yary 
greatly in number and size in various individuals, but they are always median, never 
paired. Sometimes there are 6 to 7 papillie posterior of the clitelium. 
Habitat. This worm is very common in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay, 
south of Santa Rosa, where the former form begins. I have also this form from Santa 
Clara County, Monterey County, Fresno County, ete. It is common in the foothills 
of the Sierra Nevada, in Nevada County. Among many hundred specimens col- 
lected there was only one which possessed the paired papille of the former form. 
Systematic position. The peculiar variation of the nephridio-pores places 
Argilophilus in undoubted proximity to Plutellus, both as described by Perrier and 
Benham. The extra chietal pores in Argilophilus warrants however the forma- 
tion of a new genus, even if no other important characteristics would help to make it 
yet more distinct. As is well-known, Perrier’s description of the ovaries, ete., in 
Plutellus have always been considered doubtful, and by Benham haye been shown to 
be incorrect. This of course only in the case that Benham’s worm really belongs to 
the same genus as the one described by Perrier. I do not doubt that this is so, be- 
cause the positions assigned to the ovaries by Perrier is so abnormal that it is more 
