400 
REV. H. FRIEND ON SOME NORFOLK ANNELIDS. 
“ I herewith enclose a few worms which I found to-day. 
The two specimens loose in the moss appear to me to be 
L. rubescens. Friend. I found them in the soil under cow- 
dung in a meadow at Colney (sub-soil chalky). The chip box 
contains worms from Old Lakenham, near Norwich, and these 
include a few tree worms and some Allurus. Of these latter 
I believe some are var. luteus, Friend (subsoil, gravel and 
clay).” I found specimens of D. arborea, L. castaneus, E. rosea , 
variety lacteus of Allurus and 
14. Lumbricus rubescens , Friend (= Enterion festivum , 
Sav.). 
When I reported the latter Mr. Mayfield replied, “I should 
imagine L. rubescens is plentiful here. I found those two 
under the first cow-dung I came across after entering the 
meadow. As far as I can make out L. terrestris appears to 
be as plentiful as A. longa here, only the former is found in 
drier places than the latter. L. rubellus seems to be scarce. 
I herewith enclose a large number (over 100) of small worms 
from rotten wood and decaying vegetable matter from a wood 
by the river at Costessey. The river has a very muddy 
bottom, and frequently overflows its banks, leaving great 
beds of ooze. I am afraid that most if not all of the worms 
are D. arborea , but I send the lot, being afraid to take any 
from them, as I might take something else as well.” 
These notes on Annelid bionomics are very valuable, the 
more so as I have rarely met with a naturalist who has 
attended to such matters. There were no fewer than four 
species of worms in this large collection, but I unfortunately 
omitted to record their relative numbers. They consisted of 
D. arborea , D. subrubicunda, B. eiseni , and L. castaneus ; 
worms which have a close resemblance to each other in size 
and colour as well as in habits of life. 
My final letter from this most admirable correspondent is 
dated October 31st, 1892. “ I expect yofl begin to think that 
I am tired of worm-hunting, but it is not so. I have made 
