THE GIANT EARTH-WORM OF GIPPSLAND. S7/ 
These, of course, must remain mere conjectures, unless the existence of a definite 
connection between the larval and adult structures be established, and Hatscuex’s and 
Wuirman’s observations confirmed. Meanwhile, it is interesting and suggestive to 
note the variations in structure met with in the nephridia amongst the members of 
the groups Cheetopoda and Hirudinea, leading back, as it were, to the Platyhelminth 
nephridial system. There are now known a series of gradations between the single 
pair of highly developed nephridia, quite separate from each other, and placed one in 
each segment of the body, and a well developed irregular nephridial network with no 
internal funnel-openings, and only one pair of posteriorly placed external openings, or 
an enormous number of minute nephridial tubules, with a connecting network, and a 
great number of irregularly arranged openings in each segment. 
It must be remembered that in Platyhelminthes there are no structures which 
can be exactly said to be homologous with the nephridial tubules of Chetopods, the 
network of ducts lying in the body wall beneath the peritoneal epithelium in such 
forms as Pericheta and Acanthodrilus, and more espetially in the Hirudinean 
Pontobdella, being, I would suggest, really the structures directly homologous with 
the Platyhelminth network of tubes, whilst the nephridia of Chetopods themselves 
are to be regarded as outgrowths and special developments of these tubes, their 
formation being to a large extent associated with the development of special sinuses 
and spaces within the mesoderm into which they depend. 
BeEpparp is of opinion that “it is unnecessary to regard the funnels of the 
Annelida as new structures,” and draws attention to the fact (1) that in Stylaria the 
single cell, which by its proliferation forms the funnel, becomes ciliated, and acquires 
a lumen before it undergoes division ; (2) that in Clepsine the funnel only consists of 
two cells. Lane, on the other hand, regards them as new structures, not represented 
in Platyhelnunthes, and Ep. Merysr, as quoted by Harmer,* has shown that in 
Polycheta (Terebella) the ciliated funnel arises quite independently of the body of the 
nephridium—a fact strongly in favour of Lane’s view, as is also the varied deyelop- 
ment of the nephridia, as seen in a series of adult forms within the limits of the 
Oligochate. 
The development of the funnels in Clepsine, and more especially in Pontobdella, 
would be of great interest and importance in connection with this question. 
Meanwhile, seeing further that the funnels are not present in what must be regarded 
as the most primitive nephridial system amongst Chetopods, and only appear in forms 
in which the organs are somewhat highly differentiated, it is perhaps safer to conclude 
that at all events in Chetopoda the funnels are new structures, not represented in 
Platyhelawnthes. 
From this point we may deal separately with the Hirudinea and the Chietopoda, 
as I would suggest that though the nephridial system of each is derived from one of a 
*Q.J.M.S,, 1885. P, 280. 
