148 NOTARCHUS. 
and Proc. Vict. Inst. Trin., 1895, p. 125. Not of Ruppell and 
-Leuckart. 
A single specimen found among rocks terminating the beach in 
front of the lagoon of Peteninga, one of those brackish lakes com- 
mon along the coast separated from the sea by a strip of sand, per- 
haps fifty yards wide, and six feet above high tide. Resembles A. 
savigniana Fér., but is distinguished by its broader foot and the fil- 
amentous prolongation of the lips, as well as in many of its details. 
It belongs to the genus Notarchus of Cuvier. ( Gild.). 
N. pte Rang. PI. 43, fig. 31; pl. 44, figs. 35, 36, 37; pl. 62, figs. 
1, 2, 4 (anatomy). 
Description of alcoholic specimens: Length about 11-13 cm. 
Long ovate, plump, very soft and flabby. Tentacles flattened, slit 
in front, bearing long filaments. Rhinophores rather short and 
with a few filaments. Entire dorsal surface having scattered min- 
ute simple filaments, and a number of larger, flattened processes, 
ragged with filaments. Sole broad, acute behind, roundly truncate 
in front, with a second free border behind the anterior margin. 
Mouth longitudinal with radially wrinkled lips; lateral labial pro- 
cesses large, broad and flat. Color light olive. 
Antilles (Plée) ; St. Croix and St. Thomas (Riise, Krebs, Ravn) ; 
Little Gasparilla Bay, W. Florida (Willcox & Heilprin), on floating 
masses of sea- weed. 
Aplysia pleti Rane, Hist. Nat. Aplys., p. 70, pl. 21 (1828).— 
Notarchus pleti Morcu, Journ. de Conch., xi, 1863, p. 25; Malak. 
Bl., xxii, p. 176.—p’OrBreny, Moll. Cuba, i, p. 118.—ARANGo, 
Fauna Mal. Cubana, p. 156. 
N. pleti is nearly allied to N. lacinulatus, but the latter is smaller, 
with more acuminate labial processes, according to the figures. 
There is great variation in the degree of development of the ap- 
pendages of the integument, some specimens having them less conspic- 
uous than in Rang’s figure (copied on pl. 43, fig. 31), while in others, 
such as the specimen from west Florida drawn in figs. 35, 36, ef pl. 
44, the appendages are longer. Rang’s figure seems misleading in 
the drawing of the labial processes, according to my specimens, and 
he does not show the doubling of the anterior foot margin, conspic- 
uous in all of the numerous examples I have seen. 
Pl. 43, fig. 31 and pl. 44, fig. 37, are copied from Rang. I have 
drawn on pl. 44, fig. 35 (dorsal view) and fig. 36 (under side of 
