398 Mr. F. E. Beddard on the 
eyes, and another, A-shaped, on sacral region; limbs with 
dark cross bars. From snout to vent 26 millim. 
One specimen from Taiwanfoo, S. Formosa. 
Cecilia Buckley?, sp. n. 
Maxillary teeth rather large, about 10 on each side; vomero- 
palatines 8 on each side ; inner mandibulars small, few ; outer 
mandibulars large, especially the most anterior, 9 on each’side. 
Snout broad, rounded, not very prominent, shorter than the 
distance between the eyes; latter very distinct; tentacle below 
the nostril. Body short for the genus, cylindrical; 175 
circular folds, all complete. ‘Tail indistinct, rounded. Olive 
above, lighter beneath and round the lower jaw ; throat olive. 
Total length 160 millim.; diameter of body 4 millim. 
A single specimen, probably young, collected at Intac, 
Keuador, by Mr. Buckley. 
XLVI.—On the Genus Megascolex of Templeton. 
By F. E. Bepparp, M.A., F.R.S.E. 
In a recent paper by Dr. Horst* of Leyden, the author, in 
describing a collection of earthworms belonging to the genus 
Pericheta of Schmarda, takes occasion to point out the iden- 
tity of this genus with another genus established fifteen years — 
previously by T'empleton, viz. Megascoler. Having recently 
had an opportunity, through the kindness of Dr. Traquair and 
Prof. F. Jeffrey Bell, of examining several specimens preserved 
in the British Museum and the Edinburgh Museum of Science 
and Art, which are undoubtedly Templeton’s Megascolex ceru- 
leus, I think it worth while to point out that these two genera, 
Megascolex and Pericheta, are by no meansidentical, but present 
numerous and important differences. In the paper already 
mentioned Dr. Horst recapitulates the main points in Tem- 
pleton’s original description of Megascolea ceruleus, and calls 
attention to the misinterpretations of this description intro- 
duced by subsequent writers; there is no doubt that these 
misinterpretations, for which Schmarda is mainly responsible, 
in reality caused Perrierf and Vaillant} to separate the genera 
Megascolex and Pericheta in their tables of classification, since 
there is nothing in Templeton’s description itself which would 
* Notes from the Leyden Museum, vol. v. no. xvii. 
t+ Nouv. Arch. du Mus. t. viii. (1872). 
¢ Ann. Sci. Nat. sér. 5, x. (1868). 
