1901.] OF THE GEIfUS BENHAMIA, 197 



by complete rings of a different texture, or at least appearance, to 

 the interspaces. It can be readily seen that these rings are not 

 superficial markings upon the seta, as they have been — perhaps 

 wrongly — stated to be in the case of similar seta in other worms. 

 They are, as was correctly stated by Michaelsen in another species 

 of earthworm, caused by some differentiation of the material of the 



Text-fig. 13. 



Spermatheca of Benhamia moorei. X 3. 



seta below the outermost layer. Towards the hooked end of the seta 

 these riugs get to be closer together and at the same time of less 

 diameter. In addition to these markings the extremity of theseta 

 is pitted— this time quite superficially— with minute excavations. 

 The tip is strongly hooked, and before this the seta regularly but 

 rapidly decreases in calibre, not suddenly as Michaelsen has figured 

 and described in Benhamia itiolensis. 



fSjiermatojiJiore.—I found a spermatophore in this species ; but I 

 do not give a full account of it, and as the existence of spermato- 

 phores in this genus is not my discovery, I do not give a special 

 section to an elaborate description of it. It is curious how rarely 

 spermatophores have been met with in the enormous number of 

 species (some 550) belonging to the family Megascohcidae (from 

 which I exclude the Eudrilidse). Indeed I am only acquainted 

 with their description in two forms belonging to the same genus 

 as the subject of the present communication. Dr. Michaelsen has in 

 fact figured and briefly noticed a spermatophore in Benhamia monti- 

 cola and B. itiolensis \ The spermatophore of the species described 

 here is apparently slightly different in form. I may remark first of 

 all that it lay entirely in the muscular duct of the spermatheca, and 



1 Regenwurmer in Deutsch-Ost-Afrika, p. 28, pi. i. fig- 4. 



