1920.] J. Stephenson: Oligochaeta from India and E. Persia. 243 



Eutyphoeus waltoni, Mchlsn. 



Delhi, lö-vii-1917. B. Prashad. Eight specimens. 



Gwalior, Central India ; on the bank of a stream. 17-vi-1917. B. Prashad. Four specimens. 



Ahmedabad, Bombay Pres, ll-vii-1917. B. Prashad. Numerous specimens. 



Baroda, W. India. 9-vii-1917. On banks of Vishvamitri River. B. Prashad. Two speci- 

 mens, one immature. 



Same place ; in a garden. 9-VÜ-1917. B. Prashad. Several specimens, all or mostly imma- 

 ture. 



Same place ; by the side of a tank. 9-vii-1917. B. Prashad. Four specimens. 



Same jjlace ; on a small hillock. 10-vii-1917. B. Prashad. Five specimens. 



Same place ; in a garden. 10-vii-l917. B. Prashad. A number of specimens, mostly imma- 

 ture. 



Navli, between Baroda and Ahmedabad. 10-vii-1917. B. Prashad. Four specimens, imma- 

 ture. 



Calcutta ; banks of Hugli River, in partly saltish water. 23-viii-1918. B. Prashad. Four 

 specimens, not fully mature. 



The species is common in India, and is already well known. The present large 

 number of specimens, of varying degrees of maturity, has led me to the conclusion that 

 E. bengalensis Mchlsn. (3) has no separate existence, and is only an immature form 

 of E. waltoni. In going over the above batches of specimens I had at first no suspi- 

 cion of this, and diagnosed those from Delhi, Navli, and three of those from Baroda 

 as E. waltoni, while I put down the worms from Gwalior, Ahmedabad, and two of the 

 batches from Baroda as E. bengalensis ; I began to have doubts however during the 

 progress of the work, and with regard to one of the batches from Baroda, of worms 

 of varying degrees of maturity, I could feel no certainty. The Calcutta specimens I 

 at first thought to be a new species. It seems to be the case that E. waltoni produces 

 its penial setae early, and that these may be well developed before the clitellum and 

 characteristic genital markings show themselves. 



I may perhaps be allowed to discuss shortly the differences between the two 

 species, according to Michaelsen's original descriptions (3). 



E. waltoni would appear to be a much larger worm ; the lower limit of length 

 for E. waltoni, however,, is not very different from the length of Michaelsen's single 

 specimen of E. bengalensis (ivaltoni 90-230 mm., bengalensis 72 mm. — by a misprint 

 given as 12 mm.). 



The prostomium of ivaltoni is tanylobous, of bengalensis prolobous. I have pre- 

 viously described the prostomium of waltoni as combined pro- and tanylobous, — 

 tanylobous with a transverse groove in front of the tongue ; Michaelsen does not 

 distinguish this form of prostomium from the typical tanylobous, without the trans- 

 verse groove. In one of my specimens which I put down as bengalensis without 

 hesitation, the prostomium was tanylobous. 



As may be seen from a number of the species referred to in previous pages of 

 this paper, small differences in the setal ratios are of no importance ; I may mention 

 however that similarly in one of the present series of specimens, which I had no 

 doubt about identifying as bengalensis, the ratios were exactly those given for waltoni. 



