ELIOT : NUDIBRANCHS FEOM THE PACIFIC. 233 



One specimen has 10 very small conical protuberances under the 

 posterior edge of the mantle ; the other only 5, but much larger. 

 Neither has any protuberances on the anterior mantle-edge. Their 

 absence appears characteristic of the African specimens. 



Cheomodoris (?) LiNEATA (Soulcyet). 



Chromodoris {'i) lineata (Souleyet) : Eliot, Proc. Zool. Soc, 1904, vol. i, 

 pp. 396-7, pi. xxiv, fig. 7. 



One specimen 20 mm. long, 5 broad, and 5 high ; bluish white, 

 with 5 raised lines down the centre of the back. Rhinophores large ; 

 branchiae 11. Both organs show traces of having been red. The 

 labial armature and radula, as described. The teeth are bifid, with 

 4-5 smaller denticles. 



It does not appear to be recorded that the stripes of Ch. lineata are 

 raised, but otherwise the present specimen corresponds fairly well 

 with the forms described under that name, and it seems hazardous to 

 create a new species. 



Cheomodoris annulata, Eliot. 



Chromodoris annulata, Eliot : Proc. Zool. Soc, 1904, vol. i, pp. 389-390. 



One specimen, 24 mm. long and 10 broad. 



The texture is flabby, and the mantle ample. The general colour 

 is dirty grey, with white spots, but a large purple blotch occupies 

 nearly the whole region of the back, behind the rhinophores. The 

 branchiae are 16, arranged in a spiral, and have a dark stripe down 

 the inner and outer edge. The labial armature consists of minute 

 hooked rods. The radula is as described; the teeth bear about 

 10 denticles. 



Ch. annulata has the perplexing peculiarity of losing, when pre- 

 served, the pattern which is characteristic of it in life. The present 

 specimen appears to coincide in structure with those which I found at 

 Zanzibar and to have lost its colour in much the same way. 



Cheomodoeidella mieabilis, gen. et sp. nov. 



This remarkable animal may be succinctly described as a Chromo- 

 doris with the branchial pocket situated, not on the dorsal surface, 

 but on the under side of the body, and pointing downwards. I confess 

 to considerable doubt as to whether it is a normal form or a monstrosity, 

 but Mr. E. A. Smith and Mr. F. Jeffrey Bell, who have examined it, 

 agree with me in thinking that it shows no signs of distortion or 

 irregularity. The proportions are symmetrical, and both the external 

 and internal characters appear perfectly natural. It must therefore, 

 I think, be accepted as a valid generic type, unless reason can be 

 shown for treating it as a lusus 7iaturce. 



The chief reason for suspecting that it is not a normal form is that, 

 although the position of the branchiae is so unusual, it is otherwise 

 not only a typical Chromodoris but closely allied to, if not identifiable 

 with, Ch. Semperi. The shape, the colour, the radula, and the labial 

 armature all recall those of this species (see Bergh, Semper's Reisen, 

 Heft xi, p. 482), though there are differences of detail. 



