302 MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON NEW OR L^^'^y 1*^5 



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 oesophagus in Monili- 

 gaster, can hardly have been brought about by the effects of the 

 alcohol in which the specimens were preserved. There were no 

 caeca present, unless these local thickenings represent the caeca 

 morphologically ; in other PerichcBtcB the caeca 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 Perichcetce, 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 of Eudrilus (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 ]\Ir. 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 

 spermatlieca, 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 ^udrilv.s boijeri. 

 With M. Perrier's figure before me it appeared to me that in one 

 instance, at any rate, Eudrilus boyeri agreed with Eudrilus decipiens ; 

 but in two or three other specimens which I dissected the vasa 



^ Nouv. Arch. d. Museum, t. viii. (1872) p. 71. 



* Proc. Eoy. Soc. Ediiib. (forthcoming paper); Zool. Auzeig. Bd. ix. (1886) 

 p. 342. 



