302 MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON NEW OR [May 18, 
about five or six segments from its commencement, the intestine 
undergoes a remarkable change in its structure; in three or four 
segments the walls of the intestine are greatly thickened, but these 
specially thickened regions are separated by intervals where the 
intestinal walls have preserved their normal delicacy of structure ; 
these intervals are on either side of the septa. These appearances, 
which recall the moniliform structure of the cesophagus in Monili- 
gaster, can hardly have been brought about by the effects of the 
alcohol in which the specimens were preserved. There were no 
czeca present, unless these local thickenings represent the ceca 
morphologically ; in other Perichete the cca generally contrast 
with the intestine by their greater thickness. 
On several of the anterior mesenteries were bunches of glandular 
tubules similar to those found in other Perichete, and which may 
represent the nephridia. 
The foregoing brief description is, I think, enough to distinguish 
this species from any that is at all sufficiently known. 
3. A new Species or Evpri.us (Eudrilus boyeri). 
Among some Earthworms kindly sent to me from New Caledonia 
by Mr. Layard were about a dozen individuals which I refer to 
Perrier’s genus Eudrilus ‘. This genus is already known to inhabit 
South America and the West Indies, but has not been recorded from 
anywhere else. I am inclined myself to suspect that the New- 
Caledonian specimens may have been accidently imported, and may 
not be indigenous to that island. I name the species after M. Boyer 
of New Caledonia, who collected the specimens for Mr. Layard. At 
the same time I am not convinced that the species really is new. It 
appears to differ from all the three species described by Perrier 
in the long coiled oviduct, and in the termination of the vasa 
deferentia at the middle of the prostate gland. With regard to the 
first mentioned point of difference, I have elsewhere * expressed the 
opinion that M. Perrier has mistaken the relation of the ovary to 
the spermatheca. The oviduct in my specimens so unmistakably 
corresponds to what Perrier has described as a diverticulum of the 
spermatheca, that I cannot but think that they are really identical 
even if the species are distinct. M. Perrier did not make use of the 
method of section-cutting, which is so infinitely better than dissection 
for deciding an anatomical relation like that of the ovary and its 
duct. Still the difference between my species and his in respect of 
the vasa deferentia makes me hesitate in asserting that his conclusions 
are mistaken. With regard to the vasa deferentia, M. Perrier states 
that in his species they open directly into the bursa copulatrix, and 
not indirectly by way of the prostate gland as in Hudrilus boyeri. 
With M. Perrier’s figure before me it appeared to me that in one 
instance, at any rate, Hudrilus boyeri agreed with Hudrilus decipiens ; 
but in two or three other specimens which I dissected the vasa 
1 Nouy. Arch. d. Muséum, t. viii. (1872) p. 71. 
2 Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. (forthcoming paper); Zool. Anzeig. Bd. ix. (1886) 
p- 342, 
