president’s ADDRESS — SECTION D. 
109 
accounted for is to me a perfect enigma, for I cannot believe that the 
slight difference in climate can have anything to do with it, especially 
in view of the viviparous nature of the New Zealand species. We 
can only hope that further observations may clear up the mystery, 
and in the meantime it may still be desirable to refrain from giving a 
distinctive specific name to the oviparous form, for it would be very 
awkward if we had to satisfy ourselves as to whether or not a particular 
specimen laid eggs before we ventured upon attaching a name to it. 
Of course it is conceivable that the oviparity of the observed individuals 
may have been abnormal, but the whole of the evidence afforded by 
the Victorian specimens appears to me to be against this view, and 
especially the presence of the remarkably sculptured eggshell. 
The smaller Victorian species is undoubtedly distinct. It was 
discovered by Mr. IT. It. Hogg, at Maced on, and described by me 
under the name Peripatm insignis in the “ Victorian Naturalist ” for 
April, 1890. It differs from the accepted P. leuckartii in the pattern 
of the skin, the presence of only fourteen pairs of legs, and the absence 
of an accessory tooth from the outer blade of the jaw. In this last 
character it agrees with P. novaz-zealandiaz. The Victorian specimens 
of P. insignis are much smaller than P. leuckartii , but Professor 
Spencer* has made the extremely interesting discovery that the species 
occurs also in Tasmania, and that there it attains a much larger size, 
about equal to that of P. leuckartii . Perhaps we may look upon 
Tasmania as the more proper home of this species. 
Unfortunately, I now have to point out a further element of 
doubt which enters into the nomenclature of the Australian species of 
Peripatm. When in London, recently, Professor Spencer obtained a 
translation of SaengeFs original diagnosis of Peripatm leuckartii, and. 
of this he has kindly furnished me with a copy. 
The diagnosis commences, u Found in New Holland, north-west 
from Sydney. Fifteen pairs of legs, one pair without claws, fourteen 
with.” If this be correct, then the common Australian species usually 
accepted as P . leuckartii is certainly not the species described by 
Saenger under that name, for 1 can certify that it has fifteen pairs of 
legs, all of which bear claws. There appear to me to be two possi- 
bilities iu the case — (1) Saenger has failed to observe the claws on one 
of the pairs of legs, or (2) there were really only fourteen pairs of 
claw-bearing legs in his specimen, and he counted the oral papillae as 
a pair without claws. It is difficult to say which of these alternatives 
is more likely to bo correct, but it seems just possible that my P. 
insignia may be the real leuckartii with only fourteen pairs of claw- 
bearing legs. The only way to settle the question definitely would be 
bj an appeal to Saenger’s original specimen, which is stated to have 
been in the possession of Professor Lcuckart. Perhaps some German 
zoologist may be able to undertake this task. 
The mere question of nomenclature is, however, of secondary 
importance, and whatever conclusion may be ultimately arrived at 
with regard thereto will not affect the fact that in Australia three 
forms of Peripatus occur — a more northern viviparous form with 
fifteen pairs of legs, known as P. leuckartii; a more southern oviparous 
form with fifteen pairs of legs, which is, perhaps, specifically identical 
Proc. Roy. Soc. Vic., 1894. 
