78 Dr Geo, Johi\ston's RenmrJcs mi tfie class Mollu^cuy 



2. TrITONIA I'ULCHRA. 



Body obloiig, red with 3 whitish transverse bands, and marked with minute 

 ocellated spots. 



Hub — The sea near Berwick. 



*Pesc. — Body rather more than \ inch long, oblong, of equal breadth through- 

 out, of a fine red colour with dark spots, and 3 narrow white transverse bands. 

 The back when minutely examined is observed to be marked all over 

 with ocellated spots, of which the ring is white and the eye red. Anterior 

 margin of the cloak white, rounded and emarginated in front, and the sides 

 tuberculated. Superior tentacula exactly like those of the preceding species. 

 On the margins of the back are several branchial processes or tubercles, some 

 of which are branched. I have had 3 specimens of the Trit. pinnatifida from 

 the same coast. 



I cannot agree with Dr Fleming in considering the Doris pa- 

 pillosa of Montagu, and the D. vermigera of Dr Turton as the 

 same species. In the former the superior tentacula are said to 

 be annulated, a structure which we did not observe in specimens 

 of the latter which we found on the neighbouring coast ; in the 

 D. papulosa, the lateral papillae or branchial filaments are stated 

 to be subclavate, in the vermigera they are linear, or conical ; 

 and the latter wants the bare triangular space on the anterior 

 part of the back, as represented in Montagu's figure, and taken 

 notice of in the description. The Eolis peregrina is said by 

 Dr Grant to inhabit the Frith of Forth, though not described 

 either by him or Dr Fleming. 



The Valvata cristata is mentioned as a native of England 

 only. It occurs in abundance in the Whitadder, a river which 

 runs through Berwickshire, and is therefore to be added to the 

 Scottish Fauna. Though we have kept it by us days and weeks, 

 we have not yet had the pleasure of seeing it protrude its beauti- 

 ful plumose branchiae. 



We feel indebted to Dr Fleming for his elucidation of the 

 genus Chiton^ which was getting into confusion, and chiefly from 

 a neglect of what he had done many years ago, in the article 

 " Conchology " in the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. That ex- 

 cellent article has been strangely overlooked by subsequent con- 

 chologists. It is true Dr Turton, in his Conchological Diction- 

 ary, has once or twice referred to it, but so inaccurately as to 

 statisfy us that he had not consulted it, a circumstance rather 



