396 
REV. H. FRIEND ON SOME NORFOLK ANNELIDS. 
In a couple of days after receiving my report Mr. Mayfield 
sent me (J uly 1 1 th, 1892) a further consignment. The locality 
was not named, but again four species were present, viz. : — 2 
and 3 as given above, together with : — 
5. Allolobophora longa, Ude. 
6. Allolobophora turgida. Eisen. 
Several of these had malformations. No. 5 was for many 
years so persistently confused with No. 1 that all our text- 
books of biologj r , which gave the Earthworm as a type, mixed 
the two inextricably, in spite of the fact that they are not 
merely specifically but generically totally unlike each other. 
An interesting letter with further specimens followed on 
July 14th. I had asked Mr. Mayfield to pay special atten- 
tion to the tree worms ( Dendrobcence ), about which I was 
writing for the Linnean Society at the time ; and he 
expressed his disappointment that he had not yet found any 
species of this group. “ My hunting in tree stumps,” he 
says, “has been altogether unsuccessful.” He adds — “ I here- 
with send three small worms from the roots of grass on the 
river banks. I put the small A. chlorotica among them 
simply on account of its curious tail. Is it an unusual 
malformation ? ” Two new species, in addition to No. 3, are 
to be recorded as the result : — 
• 7. Eisenia rosea , Savigny. 
8. Octolasium lacteum , Oerley. 
Mr. Mayfield says (July 18th, 1892) — “I was glad to hear 
that the abnormal A. chlorotica was something out of the 
common. I found it, and the others of the same species, at 
the roots of grass on the river bank — no trees near — the soil 
ordinary alluvium of the river valleys — -the subsoil chalky. 
The monstrosity seems to be common in this spot, as I have 
since then seen two or three like it. All the worms enclosed 
herewith were taken in this place. I have an idea that I 
have enclosed another fresh species.” 
