THE NAUTILUS. 51 



verhalten; die gelblichgrauen Mandibel ganz zerbrock- 

 elt, ..." I have previously called attention (1919, 1921) to 

 the possibility that this species may be the same as the one 

 described by Gould (1852), from the Puget Sound region. 

 Not all Melibes, however, have the same characteristics as 

 indicated by Bergh; this is shown by Alder and Hancock 

 (1864) , and substantiated by Eliot ( 1902) . The generic char- 

 acteristics as enunciated by Bergh (1875) do not necessarily 

 hold, even though this author thinks that Hancock's (Alder 

 and Hancock, 1864) description is incorrect. Bergh says: 

 ' Es kann kaum bezweifelt werden, dass die von Hancock 

 untersuchte Form, mit der von mir besprocheneii congene- 

 risch. Es werden sich daher die bei dem englischeii Verf. 

 vorkornmendeu, von den untenstehenden abweichenden aiia- 

 tomischen Angaben wahrscheinlich als unrichtig erweisen," 

 p. 363. " Besonders wird solche wohl der Fall sein, wo 

 Hancock den An fang des Verdauungscaiials bespricht: ' The 

 buccal organ is provided with neither tongue, jaws nor collar; 

 it is not by any means very distinctly marked, formed as it 

 were by a mere enlargement of the oesophagus, and having 

 little or no increase of muscular power,' ' p. 364. 



But Eliot (1902) verifies Hancock's claim when he writes: 

 " I also found Alder and Hancock's description of the in- 

 ternal anatomy to be correct, particularly as regards the 

 absence of jaws. . . . Mr. Crossland and I have, . . . dis- 

 sected several specimens of Melibe fimbriata, and in all failed 

 to detect any trace of jaws." 



Gould's Chioraera leonina (1852) corresponds very closely 

 in the general anatomy to that of Melibe fimbriata (Aid. & 

 Hanc., 1864) ; this is also true as regards the species discov- 

 ered by Rang (1829) and subsequently described by Bergh 

 (1875), as well as other Melibes described by Bergh (1863, 

 1871, 1875, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1890, 1902, 1904, and 1908). 

 The only difference is on the point in regard to the mandibles. 

 Some authors, Rang, Gould, Pease, Cooper, and Fewkes, do 

 not touch 011 this point and in that way, one cannot tell 

 whether the particular specimens with which they dealt 

 actually had such organs. Without considering the mandi- 



