288 SIR C. ELIOT AND T. J. EVANS. 
that they are limited to the dorsal regions of the body which 
are of a deeper green than the ventral surface, suggests that 
they are of the nature of Zoochlorelle or symbiotic alge. 
We see no reason to doubt that this animal is specifically 
the same as that previously described under the name 
Doridomorpha gardineri. As noted above there are some 
discrepancies (which are, however, explicable) in the descrip- 
tions of the buccal parts, and the drawings of the teeth now 
published do not give quite the same impression as the 
simpler diagrams made by Mr. Crossland. But on com- 
paring these teeth with those of the original specimen, 
which have been preserved, we can find no essential difference 
in shape. | 
The generic characters may be extracted from the above 
description and formulated as follows: 
Doridoeides, gen. nov. 
Form flat, doridiform. Dorsal surface smooth: no append- 
ages of any kind except two rhinophores retractile into pits. 
No oral tentacles. Foot and mantle margin wide: anus 
lying between them on the right hand side. No blood gland. 
Heart somewhat to the right of the median line. Jaws 
distinct and denticulate. Radula narrow, consisting of a 
large strongly cusped central tooth and a few (4) laterals. 
Stomach without plates or spines. Liver system cladohepatic, 
entering the stomach by three ducts and extensively ramified 
in the mantle margin. No cnidocysts. Kidney not much 
branched. Hermaphrodite gland a single undivided mass: 
one spermatotheca: three genital orifices: no armature in 
the genitalia. 
These characters do not agree with those given for any 
recognized family of nudibranchs. Superficially Doridoeides 
resembles Doridoxa (Bergh, ‘Ingolf Expedition,’ vol. ii, 
1900, ‘Gastropoda nudibranchiata,’ pp. 15-19), but Bergh 
states that this latter has (1) a large blood gland, (2) a holo- 
hepatic liver opening into the stomach by a single opening, 
(3) a spermatocyst, although “its relation to the sperma- 
