694 OLIGOCHAETA 



described by one of the older authorities, I insert those reasons under the descrip- 

 tion. It will clear the ground if a commencement be made by eliminating a number 

 of species, which are not referable to Lumbricus or to its immediate allies ; I shall, 

 however, only include in this list earthworms which were really assigned to the 

 genus Lumbricus, because the describers of the species lived at an epoch when 

 hardly any other genera had been made known, and those only by external 

 characters. I leave out of consideration such forms as ' Luvibricus' tubifex, of 

 whose identity there is no doubt, and 'Lumbricus' glacialis which is, of course, an 

 Enchytraeid. 



(1) Lumbricus americantis of Peekiee (3, p. 44) is not a recognizable worm. This species 

 appears to be an AUolobophora, from the fact that the funnels of the sperm-ducts lie freely in the 

 segment, and are not enclosed within sperm-reservoirs. The only points of specific importance 

 mentioned are — setae strictly paired ; spermathecae two pairs in ix, x ; clitellum extending over six 

 segments, commencing with the thirty-first. These are not enough to enable the species to 

 be placed. 



(2) Lumbricus victoris, also of Peeeiee (3, pp. 48, 103) in having three pairs of spermathecae 

 (in ix, X, xi) resembles AUolobophora cMoroiica; here, however, the likeness ends; for, in Lumbricus 

 victoris, the dorsal pore commences between viii/ix or perhaps vii/viii, and the clitellum occupies 

 segments xxv-xxxii ; if one were certain that the number of spermathecae was the normal, the 

 species might be allowed. 



Lumbricus dubius, Dvaiis (3, p. 20), is said to be closely allied to L. blainmlleus, and to possess 

 a clitellum, xxvi-xxxii, and tuberoula on xxviii and xxx. 



Lumbricus stagnalis of Hofpmeistee (1, p. 35) is a semiaquatic species found in stagnant water 

 in the Harz. The setae are distant, the prostomium incomplete ; the clitellum consists of vii-x 

 segments (xxvi, xxvii, xxix-xxxiv, xxxv, xxxviii), the exact position of the tubercula not being 

 noted. The hinder end of the body is tetragonal. Most writers have sought to identify the species 

 with A. complanata, but EosA holds that it is probajply a distinct species, which clearly requires 

 further investigation. 



Lumbricus isidorus, Dueiis (3, p. 22), is a doubtful species. It is described by Duuiis as having been 

 given to him by Geofpeoy St. HiLAiKE.who found it in a saline spring^. It has a violet colour, 

 paired setae, and the clitellum extending over segments xxvii-xxxii. It has two longitudinal bands 

 (the tubercula pubertatis ?), but their exact position is not stated. The species is evidently an 

 AUolobophora: in addition to the above points the prostomium is incomplete, but its exact position 

 is a matter of doubt. 



Lumbricus blainmlleus, Duets (3, p. 20), has paired setae and a clitellum extending over 

 segments xxvi-xxxiii; tubercula pubertatis between xxvii/xxviii and xxix/xxx. It seems to be near 

 A. norvegica. 



Lumbricus mollis, DuGES (3, p. 18), has a clitellum extending over segments xxvii-xxxvi, paired 

 setae, and an incomplete prostomium. As the position of the tubercula is not mentioned, its 

 identity is a matter of great doubt. Hopfmeistee thinks it is identical with L. teres of the 

 same writer; Vaillant has pointed out that this can hardly be, since the latter species has 



' ' Dans les eaux minerales salines et froides. 



