56 FRIEND: NEW BRITISH WORMS. 
Eisen supplied an illustration with his diagnosis, but thus far I have 
found no one who has discovered the worm elsewhere. Early this year 
I took a form in the South of England which I thought would prove 
identical therewith, but some leeches devoured all my specimens on the 
journey to the north. I have now to describe the worm from Bangor, 
which very nearly resembles Eisen’s species in some respects, though 
it is abundantly distinct therefrom in others. For the specimen I am 
indebted to Rev. Mr. Shankland, of Rhyl. 
Allurus tetragonurus Friend, is one and half inches in length, some- 
what cylindrical before, quadrangular behind and tapering from the 
girdle towards each extremity, so that the hinder part of the tail is 
only half the diameter of the girdle. ‘The girdle is very prominent, 
of a yellowish orange colour and closely fused, so that the segments 
are made out with difficulty. The fore part of the body is sienna 
brown, the hinder part a dull yellow-brown, closely resembling the 
light variety of Ad/urus (A. luteus Eisen, not A. flavus Friend). 
Total number of segments, about 85. e head is very small and 
to genera, but the attachment of the head or prostomium to the first 
segment is so variable that it cannot be relied upon. I have shown 
this in connection with a small Dendrobzene which was formerly 
called Lumbricus eiseni Levinsen, but which at present stands closely 
related to the tree-worms. 
he question now remains—Did Eisen make a mistake about 
the position of the male pore? I dare not insinuate such an idea, 
because with the exception of Rosa we have no foreign authority 
who can compare with him in accuracy of observation. For the 
present, therefore, we must assume that we have two worms which 
are practically identical in every respect (length or number of 
segments being no criterion) except in the position of the male pore, 
which in our British species is on the 13th segment and so ranks 
it with A//urus, but in America is on the 12th and so constitutes 
a new genus named TZefragonurus. If this is a fact, it must have 
a meaning, and it will be interesting to observe how future research 
will enable us to decide the question. Meanwhile it is very pleasant 
to be able to add a new species to our indigenous list, if not to the 
I append will show at a glance the differences and _ similarities 
existing between them. No. 1 represents pts pupa Eisen ; 
No. 2 stands for A/lurus tetragonurus Frien 
Naturalist, 
