457 
of Edinburgh, Session 1885-86. 
This fact is illustrated by the accompanying woodcut (fig. 2), which 
represents a vertical section through the seven pouches of the right- 
hand side of the body. In segments 8 and 9, it has already been 
mentioned that the pouches are not contained in a single segment, 
but are furnished with a diverticulum which passes through the 
mesentery into the segment behind. The series of sections confirm 
these statements, and also show that the duct of the copulatory 
pouch arises from about the junction of its two halves, which are 
only separated from each other by a slight constriction at the 
mesentery ; as diverticula, in fact, they are not well marked, the 
structure being identical throughout. 
In every case the interior of the spermatheca was filled with a 
mass of spermatozoa. 
I am able therefore, generally speaking, to confirm the accuracy 
of Duges’ observations on the copulatory pouches of Lumbricus com- 
planatus , and such a confirmation is evidently necessary, since it is 
often stated, when dealing with the structure of Lumbricidce, that 
Lumbricus differs from other genera in the fact that the copulatory 
pouches are contained in the same segments as the testes, and are 
only two or three pairs in number. The present species combines 
the characters of most Lumbrici on the one hand, and such genera as 
Pontodrilus, Urochceta , &c., on the other, in so far that the copula- 
tory pouches are present both in the segments which contain the 
testes and in certain of those which precede them. The number of 
pairs also is larger than is met with in any other known earthworm. 
Another fact of interest is the presence of diverticula, which, 
characteristic of many other genera, Perichceta , &c., have not to 
my knowledge been described in Lumbricus ; they have apparent^ 
escaped the attention of Duges, always supposing that his species is 
the same as that described in the present paper. It is rather diffi- 
cult, however, in the present species to say which part should be 
regarded as the copulatory pouch itself and which the diverticulum. 
In segment nine, for example, the pouch on the right-hand side of 
the body was considerably larger than its “ diverticulum,” and on the 
left-hand side smaller. In Perichceta there is never any such diffi- 
culty, for the diverticula have a very different appearance ; they are 
usually different in shape from the copulatory pouch; and in a species 
of Acanthodrilus , I have pointed out that there is also a difference 
