212 MK. F. E, BEUDARD OX THE OLIGOCH^TE [Mar. 6, 



Firstly, Metschaina tangamjihie has a definite spermatliecal sac 

 which I have ah^eady described ; secondly, the worms which I have 

 examined are near to matnrity, and not in the very joung stages 

 described by me in Eudrilus. Thirdly (perhaps), thei'e is no ti'ace 

 of any sac involving the ovaries. This argninent will be clear if 

 the comparison be made with the developmental figures in my 

 papei- npon Ei(,drilus quoted. 



In comparing more exactly the female reproductive system of 

 this genus with that of Eudriloides, to which it obviously bears 

 a closer likeness than to that of an}'' other genus of Eudrilid, 

 there are differences to be noted. In Eitdi-iloides durhanensis, for 

 example, the oviduct, although, as in thepi-esent species, it perforates 

 the septum dividing segments xiii./xiv. twice, depending, therefore, 

 as a loop into segment xiii., has no muscular sheath and is a delicate 

 tube as in so many earthworms. In the present speciesthe oviducal 

 tvibe is thickly ensheathed with muscular fibres. The 7n.ale organs 

 furnish the principal reason which leads me to refer this woi-m to 

 the genus Metschaina. There are, contrary to what is fovind in 

 Eudriloides*, tivo pair of testes, Avhich lie, of course, in segments 

 X. and xi. The funnels are opposite to them. The funnels face 

 the opposite wall of the segments into which they open. There is 

 no turning round and facing back into the segment behind such 

 as occurs in several Eudrilidae. The sperm-ducts retain their in- 

 dividuality, and after perforating the sheath of the atria on each 

 side open into the caecal extremity of that gland. 



The two atria or spermiducal glatids are quite separate, though 

 opening by the same external pore. The penial seta of each side 

 is long and runs obliquely through two segments. I am unable 

 to describe its pattern, as I could not rejDroduce the whole of it 

 from the sections. 



The sperm-sacs of this Eudiilid are, as is so often the case, 

 attached to the front walls of segments xi. and xii. 



The above-given account of this species jiistifies me, as I think, 

 in regarding it as a new species of Metschaina. I do not, how- 

 ever, think it desirable to di-aw up a diagnosis for comparison 

 with that given by Michaelsen for the other species of the genus, 

 since I am unable to speak positively upon certain features 

 of importance for systematic purposes. The principal jaoints 

 characterising the present species which I have ascertained 

 appear to be the following : — The calciferous glands are moi'e 

 numei'ous. There are dorsal pores present. The actual form of 

 the oviduct also is not as Michaelsen has desci'ibed and figured it 

 for Metschaina suctoria. 



Ocnerodrilus (Ilyogenia) cimningtoni, sp. n. 



Of this species sevei'al examples were preserved. They were 



* It must be recallpcl, however, that occasioiiallj' two pairs of testes have been 

 found in an apparent Eudriloides (cf. Eeddard, Q. J. M. S. xxxvi., n. s. p. 212). 



