DESCRIPTIONS OF GENERA AND SPECIES 369 



spermiducal glands and paired nephridia; but the above-mentioned species has 

 'flattened' glands. P. yarraensis again, and one or two allied forms, combine the 

 characters of my two genera, Diporochaeta and Anisochaeta; for they have a reduced 

 number of setae on the anterior segments together with coiled spermiducal glands and 

 paired nephridia. It is, in fact, as hard, if not harder, to introduce order into the 

 arrangement of the Australian Perichaetidae as to classify in a reasonable way the 

 Australian Cryptodrilidae. It is possible that a microscopic examination of the 

 spermiducal glands may show that some glands apparently of the tubular type 

 chai-acteristic of the AcanthodriUdae are not really so. In the meantime it seems to 

 me to be legitimate to retain Diporochaeta. 

 The following species are incertae sedis : — 



(i) Pheretima montana, Kinb., Otahiti. 



{2) ,, californica, Kinb., California. 



(3) Lampiio mauritii, Kinb., Mauritiu3. 



{4) Megascohx Uneatus, Hutton, New Zealand. 



(5) Perichaeta coerulea, Peeeiee, Philippines. 



(6) „ luzonica, Peeeiee, Philippines, 



(7) Megascolex sylvestris, Hutton, New Zealand. 



(8) Perichaeta corticis, KiNB., Hawai. 



(9) Megascolex antareticus, Baied, New Zealand. 



As to the first of these species, it is stated to have a olitellum of five segments beginning 

 with the thirteenth ; this suggests Megascolex rather than Perichaeta, but there is no certainty 

 that the worm belongs to either genus ; it may possibly be a Perionyx for instance. 



Pheretima californica should be, from its habitat, a true Perichaeta, for, according to our present 

 knowledge, no Perichaetidae except Perichaeta (s.s.) live in America; but, if we are to trust Kinbeeg's 

 description of the olitellum as consisting of four segments, its reference to Perichaeta is less likely. 

 The species too is remarkable for its occurrence on the sea-shore near San Francisco. I am 

 disposed to think that it may prove to be another genus altogether. 



Lampito mauritii has also a olitellum of four segments ; it may possibly be identical with my 

 Perichaeta mauritiana, in which case there will be an error on Kinbeeg's part in the enumeration 

 of the segments of the olitellum. 



Megascolex Uneatus of Hutton is too small to be my Diporochaeta intermedia; but there is no 

 reason why it should not be congeneric with that species, or, for the matter of that, why it should be. 

 The genus cannot be fixed with certainty. 



Perichaeta coerulea of Peeeiee is altered by Vaillant (6, p. 71) to Megascolex perrieri, on the 

 grounds that we have already M. coeruleus of Templeton ; as, however, I have shown that the 

 latter=P. leucocycla of Schmaeda, there would be no need for a change were P. coerulea recognizable. 

 As, however, P. coerulea is too imperfectly described, it must be for the present excluded from 

 a systematic revision of the group. The only positive fact given about it is that the oviducal 

 pores are paired, and that the setae are equidistant ; the first fact suggests Megascolex, the second 

 Perichaeta. 



Perichaeta luzonica has a ventral gap bordered by larger setae. It might be my P. acystis, but the 

 data are not suiBcient.to refer it without doubt to the genus Perichaeta. 



3B 



