MORPHOLOGY OF MELIBE 509 



II. Acknowledgements. 



The writer wishes here to express sincere thanks to Professor 

 Trevor Kincaid for helpful suggestions during the first period 

 of this work ; to Dr. H. L. Osterud for collecting and fixing 

 new material in 1916 ; to the Curator of Books and Literature, 

 Dr. E. W. Tower, of the American Museum of Natural History, 

 for unfailing kindness during the review of the literature ; and 

 to the Director of the Puget Sound Biological Station, Dr. T. C. 

 Prje, for every co-operation and assistance while at the 

 station, in the summer of 1921. 



III. On the Status of Chioraera Gould. 



Bergh's description of various species of Melibe (1875 6, 

 M e 1 i b e c a p u c i n a , ^I . r a n g i i ; 1 879 a, M . v e x i 1 1 i f e r a ; 

 1884, M. papillosa; 1888, 1890&, M. ocellata; 1902, 

 M. bucephala; and 1908, M. rosea Bang), emphasizes 

 the following as Melibean characteristics : ' BuUnis pharyn- 

 geus cum mandibulis ut in Phylliroidis ; margo masticatorius 

 mandibulae fortiter dentatus ' (1875 6: 362). Perhaps the 

 only exception to this may be found in the species collected 

 at the mouth of the Columl^ia Eiver, in the State of Washington 

 (1904), in which case the author is not sure of the mandibles. 

 He says : ' Bulbus pharyngeus lingua destitutus. . . . Die 

 Mundrohre und der Schlundkopf schienen sich wie sonst bei 

 den Meliben zu verhalten. . . .' I have previously called atten- 

 tion (1919, 1921) to the possibility that this species may be the 

 same as the one described by Gould (1852) from the Puget 

 Sound region. Not all Melibes have the same characteristics, 

 as indicated by Bergh ; this is also shown by Alder and 

 Hancocl^ (1 864) , and substantiated by Eliot (1 902) . The generic 

 characteristics as enunciated by Bergh (1875 6) do not neces- 

 sarily hold, even though this author thinks that Hancock's 

 (Alder and Hancock, 1864) description is incorrect. Bergh 

 (1875 6: 363, 364) says: ' Es kann kaum bezweifelt werden, 

 dass die von Hancock untersuchte Form mit der von mir 

 besprochenen congenerischist. Es werden sich daher die bei 



