386 MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON THE [A^P""' 19» 



Lumbricidse ; the testes and vesiculae seminales conform in every 

 respect to Lumbricus or Perichceta ; the position of the gizzard, the 

 presence of caloiferous glands on the posterior region of the oesopha- 

 gus, the extent of tlie clitellmn and the relations to it of the male 

 generative a])ertures, all point to the resemblance of this genus to 

 many Intratlitellian forms. The presence of the peculiar epidermic 

 structures believed by Vcjdovsky to represent abortive setae, ally 

 Eudrilus to Urochceta in particular among the Intraclitellians. The 

 origin of the lateral "hearts" from the dorsal vessel, and not from 

 a supra-intestinal trunk, is a point in which Eudrilus as distinctly 

 assimilates to many Postclitellians and Intraclitellian worms. 



The muscular penis of Eudrilus is, however, in my opinion, not 

 to be regarded as a new structure ; in many species of Perichceta 

 the terminal portion of the vas defeiens is a thick-walled muscular 

 tube which can be everted, and which doubtless serves as a copula- 

 tory organ ; from this condition to that which is characteristic of 

 Eudrilus is not a wide step, the everted condition of the terminal 

 section of the vas deferens being permanent in the latter genus. 

 Another point of difference from the remaining Lumbricidae is in the 

 number of accessory organs which open in common with the vasa 

 deferentia ; it must be remembered, however, that the vasa deferentia 

 retain their distinctness up to their point of opening on to the exte- 

 rior, and the presence of two prostate glands is therefore not sur- 

 prising. Jt is also possible that there is a similarity in this respect 

 between Eudrilus and Perichceta ceylonica \ only that in Eudrilus 

 a^.l the accessory male glands are concentrated, and come to open on 

 one segment in common with the sperm- ducts. 



The female generative apparatus, however, appears to be absolutely 

 unique ; there has been nothing like it described in any other Earth- 

 worm. So far as our present knowledge goes, it seems necessary to 

 separate Eudrilus into a distinct family. Perrier himself has shown 

 reasons for believing that different species of the genus may have tlie 

 male generative openings either within or behind the clitellum, and 

 i 1 any case Eudrilus shows no marked affinities to any Postclitellian 

 or Intraclitellian genera. 1 am unwilling, however, at present to 

 regard Eudrilus as the type of a new family equivalent to either 

 Postclitellians or Intraclitelliars, and I think tlat Vejdovsky's plan 

 of dividing the Oligochaeta terricola into several families (Perichse- 

 tidse, Urochsetidaj, &c.) is most in harmony with our present know- 

 ledge of the structure of the group. 



The present species cannot be identical either with any of tliose 

 described by M. Perrier, or \Aith a fourth species recently described 

 by myself, from New Caledonia. 



It differs in the position of the nephridiopores, which open in 

 front of the ventral pair of setse, and not by the dorsal pair as in all 

 the other species of the genus at present known. 



If M. Perrier had not, in his description of the genus, particu- 

 larly stated that the nephridiopores are developed in relation to the 

 doisal seta% I should have referred this species to E. pereyrinus. 

 ' Ann. it Mng. Nat. Hist. 18Pfi, xvii, p. 8!t. 



