232 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



rhinophores are large and bright orange. The brancliise are white 

 below and orange above. They are 18 in number. The three at 

 each side are larger than the rest ; the anterior plumes are very small, 

 and the hindermost turn inwards in a spiral. 



The foot is broad, grooved, but not notched in front. The mouth- 

 parts are everted. On each side is a thick, strong tentacle. 



The labial armature consists of two yellowish plates, composed of 

 thick-set, bifid rods. The colourless radula has a formula of about 

 91 X 85 : : 85 at its greatest width. The teeth are as usual in the 

 genus, the innermost denticulate on both sides, the laterals on the 

 outer side only, and the two or three outermost on the top. The 

 laterals are tall, erect, hamate, but not much bent until quite the top, 

 and bearing 7-10 minute denticles below the main hook. 



I think this animal may be identified with Gould's Doris petechialis, 

 described as follows : — " Animal rounded, oval, depressed, pale, a little 

 slate-coloured each side, and with a marginal orange-coloured line and 

 a submarginal lemon-coloured shading ; over the whole surface are 

 small, regularly disposed, rose-red blotches, like petechiae. Cervical 

 tentacles tapering, vermilion-coloured, with only a minute portion 

 laminated. Branchial star of six narrow, tapering, pinnate plumules. 

 Head very small ; lateral tentacles short, conical ; foot narrow, shorter 

 than the body ; beneath colourless, the mantle and foot bordered with 

 pale orange." Length 2^ inches, breadth 1|. Habitat, Honolulu. 



The above description corresponds almost exactly with the external 

 characters of the present specimen, the only important point of differ- 

 ence being that the branchiae are given as 6, not 18. But of the 

 18 branchiae 6 are larger than the others, and no doubt in life they 

 project conspicuously from the pocket, whereas the smaller plumes 

 remain hidden. 



CoUingwood's Ch. tumulifera (Trans. Linn. Soc, Zool., vol. ii, 1881, 

 p. 130) is probably identical with D. petechialis, but is smaller and 

 has raised tuberculate spots which possibly disappear with age. 

 Ch. pallescens, Bergh, and Ch. inarnata, Pease, are closely allied forms, 

 but present slight differences, particularly in the shape of the teeth, 

 which render identification with the present specimen difficult, though 

 they may assume its characters with further growth, as they are small 

 and perhaps young forms. 



The name petechialis has undoubted priority, and must be borne by 

 any species which can be identified with Gould's animal. 



Ch. picta (Pease), (Proc. Zool. Soc, 1860, p. 29), is not improbably 

 a colour variety of the same species. 



Cheomobokis euncinata, Bergh. 



Chromodoris runcinata, Bergh : Semper's Beisen, Heft xi, pp. 479— 

 481, pi. li, figs. 32-33; pi. liii, figs. 5-12 (1877); Eliot, Proc. 

 Zool. Soc, 1904, vol. i, pp. 393-4. 

 Two specimens, both about 25 mm. long and 7 broad. They are 



bluish white, with markings of orange and dark blue, both of which 



colours form a sort of reticulate mottling as well as isolated dots. 



Branchiae in one specimen 12, and grey; in the other, 13, and red. 



