296 EEV. H. TEIEND OW THE 



lected them myself in, DevoDshire, Gloucestershire, Yorkshire, 

 Northants, Lancashire, Lanark, Sussex, and elsewhere. It is 

 therefore evident that the species is widely distributed in 

 Britain. 



It only needs that this species should be studied by the side of 

 Allolohophora BoecMi, the type upon which Eisen founded the 

 subgenus Dendrohcena, to show that they are very closely allied. 

 I will not at this point inquire what relationship exists between 

 A. BoecTcii and Lumlricus puter, HofFmeister. Eisen says the 

 girdle is usually composed of five segments (29-33), over three of 

 which (31-33) the tuhercula pubertatis extend, I give the figures 

 according to the English notation, which makes the peristomium 

 the first segment, and places the male pore on the 15th. Eisen's 

 description published in 1870 is faulty owing to the inclusion of 

 two or three species under one name. The generic title adopted 

 in 1873 was based upon the fact that the worm was found under 

 the bark of decaying trees. It has often been confused with 

 another closely allied species which Eisen first diiferentiated 

 under the title of Allolohophora subruhicunda. This worm is 

 very widely distributed, and when once seen is not easily mis- 

 taken for any other, notwithstanding the fact that its girdle or 

 clitellum occupies almost exactly the same position as that of 

 one or two other species. It is true that the Gilt-tail (Alloloho- 

 phora suhruhicunda, Eisen) is by no means confined to woodlands, 

 but its affinities are entirely with the Dendrobsenas, and it specially 

 delights to live among fallen and decaying leaves, dead branches 

 of trees, and similar vegetable debris. I have found it depositing 

 its egg-capsules quite under the bark of decaying trees. 



When Eisen established the genus Dendrohcena it is remark- 

 able that he did not place therein his new species Allolohophora 

 arhorea. It is described as an arboreal or dendrobaenic species, and 

 its characters were in many respects so similar to those of his 

 type of the new genus that at first we are astonished to find the 

 two placed under difi'erent genera. The fault lay in the fact that 

 Eisen placed too much stress upon one character, to the exclusion 

 of the rest. With him, any worm whose prostomium cut the 

 peristomium in two was a Lumhricus, whatever other characters 

 it possessed. In Dendrohcena the prostomium occupied about 

 three parts of the peristomium, while in Allolohophora the pro- 

 stomium only slightly cut into or divided the buccal segment. It 

 is now found that this is far too arbitrary and unnatural an 



