426 Miscellaneous. 
exanguibus, libri quatuor, post mortem eius editi Nempe De Molli- 
bus, Crustaceis Testaceis, et Zoophytis (1606), De Mollibus, liber I. 
p. 78. In this work, which is purely a compilation, all of Rondelet’s 
figures again do service, and Linnzus’s reference will naturally be 
confined to the first of these. Aldrovandus also figures (p. 82) a 
couple of species of Doris as ‘“Leporis marini alia species,” and 
(p. 83) two other figures possibly representing <Aclesia. Linné’s 
“ conf. Columna” refers us to figures of the Nudibranch commonly 
known as Tethys fimbria; but this figure is merely cited for com- 
parison, not as a representation of the species 7’. leporina. 
It would therefore seem that Linné originally intended Tethys 
for the Aplysia species, his generic diagnosis and references unmis- 
takably indicating the ‘ Lepus marinus” of the early zoological 
renaissance authors. 
In the twelfth edition of the ‘Systema,’ p. 1089, Linné wholly 
alters the diagnosis of Tethys, as follows :— 
“289, Trruys. Corpus liberum, oblongiusculum, carnosum, 
apodum. Os proboscide terminale, cylindrica, sub labis explicato. 
Foramina 2 ad Jatis colli sinistrum. 
‘“Jeporin. 1. T. labro ciliato, T 
“ Column. aquat. 27. tT. 26. Lepus marinus major. 
‘“* Rondel. pisc. 526. Leporis marini tertia species. 
‘“« Habitat in Mari Mediterraneo. 
“fimbria. 2. ‘TT. labro crenulato. 
“ Bohads. mar. 54%. 5. f. 1,2. Fimbria. 
“ Habitat in mari adritico. 
“Videtur a precedenti distincti species.” 
All of these references belong to the one Mediterranean species 
(see Bergh, in Semper’s ‘ Reisen,’ 2ter Theil, ii. p. 348), known as 
Tethys fimbria or leporina *. 
On page 1082 of the twelfth edition the new genus Aplysia or 
Laplysia ¢ is proposed, thus :— 
* The specific name of this Nudibranch must stand fimébria, Linn., the 
binomial combination Tethys leporina being preoccupied by Linnzus, 
1758. The synonymy of the genus is as follows :— 
1761. Fimbria, Bohadsch, 1761 (a mononym). 
1767. Tethys, L. 1767, not Tethys, L. 1758. 
1801. Tethis, Lam. Syst. An. s. Vert. p. 63. 
1808. Thethys, Cuvier, Ann, du Mus. d’Hist. Nat. xii. p. 257. 
1808. Thetis, Meckel, Beytr. zu vergleich. Anat. I. i. p. 9, not Thetis, 
J. Sowb. Min. Conch, 1826. 
1817 ?. Thetys, Fér. Tabl. Syst. p. 28. 
1819. Phoenicurus, Rudolphi, Entozoorum Synopsis, p. 573. 
1823. Vertumnus, Otto, Nov. A. Ac. C. Leop. Nat. Cur. xi. pp. 294- 
300. 
Of these names, the first was not distinctly proposed as a genus, Bo- 
hadsch’s nomenclature being strictly mononymic. The seventh and eighth 
were founded on minute appendages of the animal, supposed to be para- 
sitic worms; and certainly the genus could not be identified by these 
descriptions. The other names are variants on Linnzeus’s original Tethys. 
{ The spelling “ Laplysia” is evidently a typographical error or over- 
