82 Memoirs of the Indian Museum. [Vor. VI, 
batches there were present behind the clitellum larger nephridia. These were most 
closely examined in a specimen of the first batch; they were present, one on each 
side of most if not all segments, as a wavy or twisted tube in the lateral region, 
and in relative size about as large as those described (v. ant.) for M.eschemchi var. 
papilifer. At the posterior end of the animal there were, easily visible to the naked 
eye, two or three nephridia on each side of each segment, sometimes attached, some- 
times not, to the anterior septum; with the dissecting binocular a larger number of 
minute micronephridia, previously invisible, came into view. 
Since these larger nephridia were not mentioned in my original account of the 
worm, I asked for and obtained, through the kindness of Dr. Annandale, permission 
to re-examine the type of the species. The actual type specimen is mutilated pos- 
teriorly ; there are no larger nephridia in the anterior part of the body, where it had 
been opened in the previous dissection; but on opening the specimen at its hinder 
end (probably corresponding to a place rather behind the middle of a complete 
worm) some of the nephridia (2.e. micronephridia) in each segment were found to be 
larger than the rest:—not one only, and the difference in size was in some cases 
relatively considerable. 
The second specimen of the original batch, hitherto undissected, was also opened 
in its posterior portion for nearly half its length. Where this dissection begins, there 
is one larger nephridium on each side per segment (sometimes only on one side); 
these are considerably larger than the rest, and consist of a number of coils, in marked 
contrast to the micronephridia which consist of single tiny loops ;—still they are 
not more than half as large, relatively to the other structures, as those of M. escherichi 
var. papillifer. Passing backwards, they very soon become smaller, and in the pos- 
terior third of the body increase in number, there being frequently two on each side. 
At the posterior end they are quite small, though still very obviously distinguishable 
from the numerous minute nephridia among which they lie. 
The remaining organs present no considerable differences from the original descrip- 
tion. 
Remarks.—It may be taken as established that the present species is one of the 
few belonging to the genus Megascolex which have the gizzard in segment vii; further- 
more, it is actually in the posterior part of vii, thus approaching in this respect more 
nearly to the condition in Pheretima than, perhaps, any other species of the genus. 
There are however no testis-sacs. 
It is interesting to compare the condition of the nephridia in the several speci- 
mens with those in the preceding species. It does however not seem possible here to 
distinguish a ‘‘ meganephric’’ variety. 
I append a brief note on a specimen, found along with the example of M. nureli- 
yensis, which represents perhaps a mere abnormality, but possibly a distinct var- 
iety :—Length 64 mm , diameter 24 mm.  Epilobous }, tongue not cut off behind. 
First dorsal pore in 5/6. Male apertures on small, slightly elevated whitish papillae, 
with their centres a little external to line c; spermathecal apertures with their 
centres in /g, if not in g. The two pits however constitute the chief difference; they 
