47 



way between the ventral and dorsal series of setae; at the left side 

 a conical organ was everted through the pore. No trace of a clitel- 

 lum could be detected. 



The specimen being too small for dissection, it was cut in serial sections 

 to examine it more thoroughly. The body- wall is very thin, so the blackish 

 contents of the intestinal canal are visible through it; however this 

 is not the case in the anterior thirteen segments, which present a 

 whitish colour and glandular appearance. No doubt this is due to the 

 much greater thickness of the muscular layers of the body-wall in the 

 anterior segments, for there is not much difference between the epi- 

 dermic covering of the anterior and posterior body-region, as also has 

 been pointed out by Beddard for M. barwelli. The epidermic layer of 

 our specimen however almost entirely consists of large, oval, glandular 

 cells (goblet-cells), while the columnar hypodermic cells could scarcely 

 be observed; the epidermis of M. barwelli, according to Mr. Beddabd's 

 description '), seems not to show such a difference from that of other Lum- 

 bricidae. In the vicinity of the male pores I found large groups of pyriform 

 cells (PL III, fig. 21), extending internally within the longitudinal muscular 

 layer and opening externally with slender processes between the epi- 

 dermic cells; they consist of a finely granular protoplasm and their 

 nucleus is darkly stained by alum carmine. Perhaps those glandular 

 cells may be considered as representing the failing clitellum ; however 

 they do not seem to be observed neither by Beddard nor by Rosa *). 



The septa in front of the genital organs are very thick and muscular. 

 The pharynx is on its dorsal side covered by a large mass of glandu- 

 lar cells, extending posteriorly along the lateral side of the beginning 

 of the oesophagus; the monilated gizzard appears to commence in 



I however believe my statement to be correct, though it is very difficult to number 

 the segments accurately, as the setae in the anterior body-region are not visible and 

 my material is in too poor a condition to make sections of them. I now am inclined to 

 to doubt, whether the large Sumatra-species really does belong to the genus Moniligas- 

 ter; for it does possess characters, not to be found in the till now described Monili- 

 gaster-s^&ciQs: f. i. the position of oviducal pores on segment XIV and the shape of 

 the prostata-gland, which are long and tubular like in Acanthodrilm. Moreover the male 

 pores in M. Houtenii are situated in front of the dorsal setae, and not between the 

 ventral and dorsal setae, as observed in M. beddardi and in our specimen of Timor. 



1) Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Vol. XXXVI, 1891 , p. 1, with 

 Plate. 



2) Aimali del Museo civico di Storia naturale di Genova, 2th Sér., Vol. IX, 1890» 

 p. 3, pi. XII. 



