ELIOT— NUDIBRANCHS. 425 



The oral tentacles are long and digitate. The upper margin of the foot is grooved, 

 and the upper lamina is expanded into very ample lappets witli a considerable space 

 between them, as shown in Bergh's figure [1. c. plate xlix. fig. 14). The foot and 

 back extend for some distance behind the hranchise, but there is no separate tail 

 whatever. The branchiae are seven and very large. They rise out of a wide flexible 

 cup like a sleeve ; the margin is soft and undulated but not crenulate. The rhinophores 

 are very large and thick ; their sheaths are like the branchial pocket on a smaller scale. 



The radula has a maximum formula of 50x 35 . . 35. The teeth are tall and erect, 

 with rather blunt tips. The teeth nearest the rhachis are thinner than the others, and 

 bear a denticle or projection on the base. 



The specimen was not further dissected, in order to preserve its appearance. It is 

 undoubtedly K. rubescens, Bergh, and the animal figured by me under that name, I. c. 



PLATYDORIS. 



This genus is in much the same condition as Discodoris, and it may be well to review 

 briefly the list of species. 



Bergh has shown that PI. punctuolata and PI. variolata (d'Orbigny) are really 

 referable to Anisodoris. The two species described by the same author from the 

 Canaries have not been seen since. D. canariensis can hardly be a Platydoris, for its 

 back is said to be soft and velvety ; but PI. punctata (d'Orbigny), though doubtful, 

 may perhaps be allowed to stand with a query. PL incerta, Eliot, is an immature 

 form, and may be neglected. PI. papillata, Eliot, is almost certainly Soplodoris 

 desmoparypha, B. There is some discrepancy in the accounts of the labial armature, 

 and also some doubt as to whether the form should be regarded as a Platydoris or the 

 type of a new genus. Quoy and Gaimard's Doris sordida is, perhaps, the same animal, 

 but it is difficult to prove the identity *. Parran's PL ? spinulosa should not, I think, 

 be referred to this genus. 



I have examined Abraham's original specimens, and think D. murrea unidentifiable ; 

 D. hepatica is probably a Platydoris but looks discoloured, and it seems unsafe to found 

 a species on a single dubious specimen. But Platydoris tabulata, of which I have 

 dissected the type specimen, is a valid species allied to Bergh's PL variegata, and 

 perhaps identical with it, in spite of some variations in colour and other details. 

 PL inframaculata and PL speciosa are allied to one another and to Alder and Hancock's 

 PL ellioti. It is not impossible that aU may be varieties of one species. But at 

 present I do not think this demonstrable. An examination of a large series of Japanese 

 specimens which I have made indicates that Abraham's PL speciosa was immature. 

 The full-grown animal is 15 centimetres long or more. The back is covered with dark 

 mottlings of many shades of brown and purple, which vary greatly in different 

 specimens. The underside is deep clear yellow with bold black blotches. PL formosa 



• It might also be the adult PI. speciosa, see below. 



