BY T. HARVEY JOHNSTON AND OTTO S. HIRSCHFELD. 73 
(Hancock, pl. 66, figs. 1, 2, 3 ; Davidson pl. 29, fig. 9). The 
arrangement in New Caledonian specimens of L. anatina 
is shown in Francois’ figure (1895, p. 315) as being simple ; 
likewise also in Woodward’s figures. Occasionally the 
terminal portions of the sinuses in L. bancroftt are somewhat 
swollen, resembling the condition figured by Gratiolet (p. 89, 
fies = pl. 8: fig. 1). 
The posterior pallial sinus on each side is inconspicuous 
and bears very short branches since this region of the body 
is very narrow owing to there being little room between 
the oval perivisceral cavity and the lateral edge of the body. 
In ZL. anatina and L. murphiana there is a considerable 
space in this position on each side and the posterior sinus 
is consequently large and gives off numerous short branches 
(Francois, King, Gratiolet, Hancock). The structure of a 
branch of the anterior sinuses is like that described and 
figured by Morse (p. 351, pl. 53, fig. 4), the ciliate ridge 
dividing the channels or lacune being rather wide and 
shallow. 
The arms or brachia do not call for comment. They 
are pearly, whereas in L. anatina Morse states (p. 332) 
that they are pure white with a border and collar of a dark 
brown and the sides of the cirri also-brown. Though this 
author recorded that the arms could be protruded to a 
considerable distance beyond the shell (pl. 40, fig. 17), we 
did not observe such action, some of the cirri being the only 
projecting structures. Yatsu (p. 64) reported that the 
Japanese L. anatina could project only the comb-like row 
of cirri of the largest whorl of the arm, the tip of the brach- 
ium being always retained within the mantle cavity. 
If a section be cut across an arm (text-figure 7), the 
anterior canal (which is circular in section) is seen to be 
comparatively large while the posterior canal is long and 
very narrow, lying just below the surface. The brachial 
fold is prominent. The general appearance is like that of 
L. anatina as figured by Gratiolet and that given by Hancock 
for his L. anatina (pl. 65, fig. 7) whichis really L. murphiande 
We have compared the muscular system with the 
available accounts given for L. anatina and L. lepidula, 
but have not been able to consult Blochmann’s important 
paper on the subject (1900). 
