350 MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON [May 3, 



segments viii. and ix. are wider than the others ; the pair of seg- 

 ment vii. are hardly of less calibre ; the other contractile lateral 

 vessels are decidedly thinner. The non-contractile perivisceral vessels 

 were obvious in the posterior segments of the body. The first pair 

 of "hearts " each give off a slender branch, which runs forward in 

 the direction of the pharynx. I did not find a corresponding 

 branch to arise from the following " hearts." 



The " stomach " is in segments x. and xi. ; the wider part of the 

 intestine commences in segment xiv., but there was some variability 

 in this point. In some individuals I could recognize no narrow 

 oesophagus following the "stomach." The lattice-work of blood- 

 vessels upon the alimentary tract was in many specimens very clear. 

 On the " stomach " this^was particularly so, and I found a longi- 

 tudinal trunk, such as Stole has figured in Nais, on one side ; the 

 nephridia vary much as to the segment where they begin. Perrier 

 mentions the sixth segment, so too does Bousfield. In the first 

 individual which I examined they were apparent from the viiith 

 segment ; in another they did not begin until the xiith segment ; 

 in a third the ninth segment contained the first pair. 



ii. Note upon Pristina longiseta. 



In a valuable paper upon the Naidomorpha, published in a recent 

 number of ' The Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science,' Prof. 

 A. G. Bourne ^ remarks of Pristina longiseta, " This species has been 

 recently re-described by Vejdovsky. I have not seen it, nor has it, 

 so far as I know, ever been recorded from England." 



Having lately had the opportunity of examining a specimen, I 

 offer the following remarks upon it. Firstly, its occurrence in 

 England is of interest. There is no doubt, however, that the small 

 number of aquatic Oligochseta hitherto recorded from Great Britain 

 is simply due to the fact that they have not been looked for. The 

 worm has been figured by Leidy ^, d'Udekem % and Vejdovsky*. 

 Neither d'Udekem nor Tauber ' appear to have known of Leidy's 

 paper. Vejdovsky does not refer to it in the list of synonyms of 

 Pristina longiseta, but does mention both the paper and the species, 

 without comment, under the description of the family Naidomorpha ; 

 in the table of known species of Naids and their distribution 

 Vejdovsky does not cite N. America as a locality for Pristina longi- 

 seta. The double omission therefore leads me to the opinion that 

 Vejdovsky was not certain as to the identity of the species termed 

 by himself and Leidy Pristina longiseta. Vaillant, moreover, con- 

 siders that the identity of the two is not fully established ; the only 

 difference, however, to which he calls attention is a difference of 



1 " On the Naidiform Oligochajta, &c.," Q. J. M. S. vol. xxxii. p. 352. 



^ " Descriptioas of some American Annelida Abranchia," J. Ac. Nat. Sci. 

 Philad. vol. ii. p. 44. 



' " Nouvelle Classification des Annelidas Setigeres Abrauches," Bull. Ac. 

 Eoy. Belg. t. xxii. p. 652. 



^ System und Morphologie der Oligocbaeten : Prag, 1884, p. 31. 



* Annulata Danica, 1879, p. 73, 



