348 NOTES ON SOME BRITISH NUPIRRANCHS. 



P. lovcni seem8 to differ from P. undulata in its colour, in having 

 fewer and thicker side lamelliu, and in its dentition. In P. undulata 

 the central tooth is much broader, and all the teeth, with the exception 

 of the last two or three in each row, are denticulate. 



LOMANOTUS, YERANY, 1846. 



(Alder and Hancock, Monograph, Fam. 3, genus 10 (under name of 

 Eumenis). Garstang, Journ. Mar. Biol. Assoc, vol. i., 1889, pp. 185-9. 

 Beaumont, Proc. Royal Irish Acad., 1900, pp. 842-4.) 



The members of this genus are not common, and large specimens are 

 distinctly rare, though small ones are not infrequent in some localities, 

 e.g. Plymouth. The body appears to be very delicate and easily torn, 

 and most authors report that their specimens were badly preserved. 

 The following species have been described. 



1. Lomanotus genei, Verany. Catal, degli. anim. invert, di Genovce 

 e Nizza, 1846. 



2. L. hancocJd, Norman. Ann. Mag. N. H., vol. xx., 1877, p. 518. 



3. L. 2Jortlandicus, Thomps. Ann. Mag. N. H., 1860, vol. v. p. 50. 



4. L. eisigii, Trinch. Bendic. Ace. Set. Fis. Mat., xxii. 3, 1883, pp. 92-4. 



5. L. Jlavidus, A. & H., Monograph, Fam. 3, pi. 41. 



6. L. marmoratus, A. & H., Monograph, Fam. 3, pi. 1. 



7. L. varians, Garstang, I.e. 



Of these names the last is proposed by Garstang for all the British 

 species (Z, marmoratus, L. Jlavidus, L. j)ortla7idicus, and L. hancocJci), on 

 the supposition that they are really one. But if that supposition is 

 correct, the right course would seem to be not to introduce a new name, 

 but to call all the forms by the earliest of the existing specific names. 

 L. varians may therefore be omitted from the list. The remaining six 

 forms may be divided into the large and the small. Of the large forms 

 L. genei has undoubted priority as a name, and it is unfortunate that 

 the authors of the remaining three large species, L. hancocki, L. port- 

 landicus, and L. eisigii, did not, in describing them, state definitely in 

 what points they considered them to differ from the typical species. It 

 seems certain that the number of processes on the frontal veil and on 

 the rhinophore sheaths differs in otherwise similar individuals and can- 

 not be made a specific character. L. portlandicus does not seem to be 

 distinguished from L. genei (I.e.) by any clear character. Norman states 

 tiiat the most marked character of his L. hancocki is " the small size of 

 the terminal, simple, conical process, which is projected beyond the 

 calyx-like sheath " of the rhinophores. But it is highly probable that 

 the rhinophores were of the usual type, and that the lower laminated 

 portion was merely hidden within the sheath. Trinchese (I.e.) has 



