THE LEECHES OF MINNESOTA 115 



the only ones included in his collections were placed in an aquarium 

 with H. grandis. One night the cover was accidentally left displaced 

 and on my arrival the following morning both were gone, but none of 

 the other species were missing. A shining track of dried mucous on 

 the polished floor showed the course of their wanderings. One quickly 

 disappeared beneath a wall case. The other was tracked for a meas- 

 ured distance of more than fifteen yards, when it too disappeared be- 

 neath the wash-board. Neither was recovered, but the circumstance 

 is mentioned as showing the tendency of this species to wander and its 

 ability to live in a perfectly dry situation, and as further confirmation 

 of my opinion of the identity of this with the land leech of Illinois. 

 Under the same circumstances Hccmopis marmoratis or Erpobdella 

 punctata would have quickly died before having crawled nearly so 

 great a distance, as I know from experience. Concerning the ter- 

 restrial form Prof. Forbes writes of having obtained fifty-six speci- 

 mens, all from the earth in central Illinois and some of them half a 

 mile or more from the nearest water, while none occurred in the 

 course of a large amount of aquatic work done in the same regions 

 during the same period. Its only known food is earthworms which 

 it swallows entire. From the fact that his specimens were all obtained 

 from March to June, Prof. Forbes suggests that it is probable that this 

 species penetrates the soil to considerable depths during the midsummer 

 draughts. So far as I know the terrestrial form has been taken by no 

 one else in this country, but a very large terrestrial leech found by 

 Philippi in Chile is indistinguishable in the description and excellent 

 figure from Forbes species. 



Haemopis plumbeus sp. nov. 



(Plate IV. figs. 29, 30, 31) 



? Hiru.do lateralis Say (1824) in part. 



Description — Though resembling H. lateralis quite closely in color 

 this hitherto unnamed form stands much nearer to //. grandis, to be 

 next described, in respect to both internal and external structure. The 

 features in which it differs from the latter are rather slight but have 

 proved quite constant in all of the specimens examined. Probably this 

 species does not equal H. grandis in size, the available specimens vary- 

 ing between two and six inches in length. The form is heavy like that 

 species, and the oral sucker larger and lips much broader. A rather 

 wider unsegmented rim borders the sucker. Except that they are rather 

 larger the eyes are like those of H. grandis in structure and arrange- 



