MORPHOLOGY OF MELIBE 511 



statiiif^ <i reason, classifies Cliioraera as a synonym of 

 M e 1 i b e . Owing to the fact that (loulcl and also Cooper were 

 ignorant of the actual discovery of the genus Melibe, the 

 name Cliioraera was invented by Gould and subsequently 

 used by Cooper. The name is, in fact, a mythical term that 

 is related in meaning to the former. Bergh (1904), describing 

 a species from the territory of Gould, Cooper, and Fewkes, 

 does not hesitate to employ the nomenclature of Eang (1829), 

 so similar is this form to the Melibes from other parts of the 

 world. No other author, except Bergh, gives mandibles as 

 a generic characteristic. That is, this feature is not observed 

 by Eang (1829), Gould (1852), Pease (1860), Cooper (1863), 

 de Filippi (1867), Tapparone-Canefri (1876), or Fewkes (1889). 

 Although Melibe Rang (1829), and Chioraera Gould 

 (1852), differ somewhat in shape, they are very similar in most 

 other respects. Both have a series of papillae on each side 

 dorsolaterally ; a large hood, cowl, or veil ; a pair of tentacles 

 (the so-called rhinophoria) on the veil ; the veil fringed with 

 at least two rows of cirrhi ; and a narrow grooved foot which 

 is blunt in front and pointed behind ; the head distinctly 

 separated from the body, and in each case it is very large ; 

 the gizzard is lined with a ' keratinized ' secretion which 

 protects the delicate epithelium, the so-called stomach-plates 

 of Alder and Hancock, or ' Magenzahne ' of Bergh ; these 

 two types are carnivorous ; both are pelagic ; and both are 

 distinctly cladohepatic. Therefore the species of the American 

 west coast which falls within this description must be the same 

 genus, i.e. Melibe. The effort, therefore, to build further 

 on the nomenclature of Gould, as was done by Cooper (1863), 

 Fewkes (1889), and more recently by Heath (1917), seems to me 

 to be indefensible. And, owing to the fact that the genus 

 Melibe may either possess mandibles (Bergh, 1875 6) or not, 

 (Alder and Hancock, 1864 ; de Filippi, 1867 ; Tapparone- 

 Canefri, 1876 ; Eliot, 1902), the generic des«ription may be 

 modified to read, in part, Bulbus pharyngeus aut cum mandi- 

 bulis aut sine mandibulis ; radula et lingua destitutus. None 

 of the authors (Gould, Cooper, Fewkes, Heath) who has not 



