336 NOTES ON SOME BRITISH NUDIBRANCHS. 



below. The first lateral (I'l. xi., Fig. 1. b.) is of the usual clumsy shape, 

 but is rather variable in outline. The second lateral (PI. XL, Fig. 1. c.) is 

 smooth, moderately stout, and simply hamate. The succeeding teeth 

 become longer and slenderer towards the outside. The third lateral 

 bears a prominence or rudimentary denticle, and the remaining laterals 

 in the middle of the half-row (PI. XL, Fig. 1. d. e. f.), bear from one to three 

 long branch-like denticles, and sometimes one or two accessory shorter 

 ones. Towards the end of the row the denticles are found only at the 

 tip of the teeth, and the outermost (PI. xi., Fig. 1. g.) are elongate and 

 bifid. This peculiarity is not marked in Alder and Hancock's plate, 

 which otherwise gives a very accurate representation of the radula. 



STAURODORIS, BERGH. 



It is worthy of consideration if this genus should not bear the 

 Linufean name of Doris. Bergh {Mai. Unt. in Semper s Rciscn, xiv. 

 p. 616) decided to discontinue the use of this name (" besser wiire es, 

 wie liier geschieht, den Namcn Doris als generische Bezeichnung ganz 

 zu streichen "). But there seem at least two objections to this course. 

 Firstly, if an old genus is divided into sub-genera, one of these new 

 sub-genera should, according to the rule generally recognized, bear the 

 name of the old genus. Secondly, it would appear that in Staurodoris 

 verrucosa, Bergh, the use of the specific name really admits that the 

 animal is the Linn;ean Doris. The type of Doris is Doris verrucosa of 

 the tenth editit^n of the Si/sUma Natura\ It is true that the animal 

 cannot be recognized from Linmeus's description, but Cuvier identilied 

 it riglitly or wrongly with a Mediterranean form, and Cuvier's animal 

 has been renamed Staurodoris verrucosa by Bergh. But this form can 

 bear the specific name verrucosa only on the supposition that it is the 

 Doris verrucosa of Liuna-us. Therefore either it is Doris verriLcosa, or 

 else Staurodoris with a new specific name; but it cannot logically be 

 Sta urodoris verrucosa. 



Further, it seems a pity to abolish a well-known name used by so 

 many eminent naturalists, and in my opinion the use of Doris is not 

 only correct, but convenient. I cannot help thiiddng that the distinc- 

 tions between Bergh's genera of the Archidorididic are somewhat 

 mitmte, and that a juster classification would be secured by the use of 

 the genus Doris (type Doris verrucosa), to include as sub-genera at least 

 Staurodoris, Archidoris, Anisodoris, and possibly others. 



Staurodoris, liergh, cannot in my opinion be satisfactorily separated 

 from Archidoris, Bergh, as the two genera are connected by their less 

 typical members. The typical Staurodoris has simply pinnate branchiae 

 and the back studded with clavate tubercles, which form valves round 

 the rhinophores and branchiie. But in the less typical form the 



