298 BEV. H. TRIEND OK" THE 



Synonym ; Alloloboj)'hora celtica, Eosa, Boll. Mus. Zool. Torino, 

 1886. 



Found under bark of decaying trees, among dead leaves, or 

 under vegetable mould. Scotland : — Dumfriesshire (Langbolm, 

 1890); Lanarkshire (Paisley, 1892). England: — Devonshire 

 (Bovey Tracey, 1890) ; Gloucestershire (Painswick, Mr. Wat- 

 kins, 1891) ; Yorkshire (Idle, 1891) ; Kent (Tunbridge Wells, 

 1892); Northants (Brackley, Mr. Blaby, 1892); Sussex (Dal- 

 lington, 1892) ; Lancashire (Morecambe, 1892). Continental 

 records:— Brittany (Brest, Dr. Eosa, 1886); Italy (Eosa,1887). 



2. A. (Dendeob^k-a) Boeckii, Msen. (PL XXI. fig. 2.) 

 This worm has rarely been taken in England. I have, in fact? 

 up till the present only three absolutely reliable records. The 

 species is well-defined, but there has been in the past endless 

 confusion owing to the supposed connection between it and 

 Lumbricus puter, Hoffmeister. Eisen's description is very brief, 

 and I therefore describe the species from my own material. 



Prostomium more deeply imbedded in the peristomium than in 

 the last species. Male pore on segment 15, on somewhat 

 prominent papilljB. Eirst dorsal pore large, between segments 5 

 and 6. Grirdle of 5 segments normally, covering 29-33, with 

 tulercula pubertatis on (30), 31, 32, 33 (Eosa and Eisen give 31, 

 32, 33, but one of my specimens was as described). Anal seg- 

 ment somewhat pear-sbaped. Length about 1| inches (Eosa 

 gives 25-35 millim. for specimens in spirits). Total number of 

 segments 80-100. Colour reddish brown, with red clitellum and 

 light, flesh-coloured ventral surface. Seta in 8 almost equi- 

 distant rows. Although Eisen and many others have regarded 

 Lumbricus puter, Hoffm,, as corresponding with this species, my 

 examination of the subject negatives the idea *, and I have no 

 hesitation in referring Hoffmeister's worm to Eisen's Allolobo- 

 pJiora subrubicunda — a worm which is far more widely distributed 

 than D. Boeckii, and one which has been mistaken for the latter 

 by many authors. I regard this species as being without 

 synonyms, and take Eisen's description as the original account 

 of a new species as well as a new genus. This worm is so much 

 like Lumbricus purpureus, Eisen, that it might easily pass as a 

 true Lumbricus. We may compare also L. melibceus, Eosa. 



* I am glad to find myself supported in this yiew by bo reliable an authority as 

 Dr. Eosa, of Turin. 



