DESCRTPTIOI^S OP GEl^^ERA AND SPECIES. 



[Earthtvorms of Unrecognizable Position. — In the succeeding pages a number of species are dealt 

 with, originally described under the generic name of Lumbricus, but really referable to other 

 families or genera. A few forms remain which are undoubtedly earthworms, but which cannot 

 be referred, even with probability, to any family. These species are the following : — 



Lumbrictis capensis^ (Kinbeeg), L. helenae (Kinberg), L. 'hortensiae (Kinberg), L. rubrofasciatus 

 (Baird 3), L. vineti (Kinberg), L. apii (Kinberg), L. pampicola (Kinberg), L. tellus (Kinberg), 

 L. iakitanus (Kinbebg), L. juliformis (Baird 3), L. guildingi (Baird 3). 



The genus Eurydame of Kinberg is regarded by Vaillant as synonymous with Titanus 

 ( = Geoacolex). As a matter of mere guess work, for Vaillant's suggestion is nothing else, I should 

 rather prefer Aniens or Ehinodrilus. Eurydame insignis has the setae more separate posteriorly 

 than anteriorly; it is a small worm from Panama 58 mm. in length. Segesypyle hanno, Kinberg 

 is from Port Natal and is only 28 mm. in length. There are eight setae per segment, separated 

 posteriorly ; anteriorly the ventral are closer than the dorsal. Is this possibly my Acanthodrilus 



» 

 Helodrilus oculafus, Hoffmeister. 



H. oculatus, W. HOPPMEISTEE, Die bis jetzt bek. Art. Regenw., p. 39. 



This is an extremely mysterious species, neglected by Rosa in his recent revision of the 

 Lumbricidae, and, therefore, probably not believed bj' him to be a Lumbricid. Its most remarkable 

 structural peculiarity is a pair of eye-spots on the buccal segment. There are four pairs of setae 

 in each segment, which are straight instead of curved and said to be black ; the male-pores are 

 "upon the fifteenth segment. The body is elongate and pink in colour ; the length at most 135 mm. 

 It occurs on the sea shore in pools more or less dried up. 



Vaillant (6, p. 168) suggests that this worm is probably a Tubificid, on account of the 

 presence of eye-spots, and on account of its habitat. The black setae are very suggestive of what 

 I have myself observed in Tubifex rivulorum. But it does not seem to me that we are justified in 

 relegating the genus to any family at present. 



1 Certainly not a Lumbricus. I have examined, by the kindness of Prof. Loven, Kinbero's type ; but 

 such was the condition of the worm that I can only mention the fact that the gizzard is situated far 

 forward, which is not a character of the Lumbricidae. 



