200 MR. P. S. ABRAHAM ON THE [ Mar. 6, 
tacles (rarely absent); odontophore broad, with numerous spines in 
each transverse row. 
The genus is very similarly characterized in the Appendix to 
Messrs. Alder and Hancock’s monograph. In the text of that work, 
however, ‘“‘ Doris”’ is made to include Doris proper, Lamellidoris, 
and Acanthodoris as sections. ‘There can be little doubt that the 
internal and external distinctions of the three groups are really sound 
generic differences. 
The following subdivisions of the restricted genus Doris were pro- 
posed by Alder and Hancock ;— 
“a. Dorsal tentacles conical ; oral tentacles tubercular ; cloak with hard spicu- 
lose tubercles. Lingual spines simple, uniform; no central spine. 
Type D. tuberculata, Cuv. 
“}. Dorsal tentacles conical; oral tentacles tubercular ; cloak with soft 
tubercles. Lingual spines long, linear, obtuse, denticulated ; no central 
BPING? aractacecsemttncaes sonornpceearaceeckdssereess Type D. zetlandica, A. & H. 
“¢, Dorsal tentacles clavate ; oral tentacles linear; lingual spines of two forms; 
MOLCENCC Al SPINO en acaeiien see ecr nm ceemesvencouses Type D. johnstoni, A. & H. 
“d. Dorsal tentacles linear; oral tentacles angular, flattened. Lingual spines 
denticulated ; a small central spine. Mouth with a spinous collar. 
Type D. repanda, A. & H. 
“e, Dorsal tentacles conical, partially retractile, and protected by leaf-like ap- 
pendages; oral tentacles linear or tubercular; branchize linear, simply 
pinnate; cloak with large tubercles. Lingual spines simple, uniform ; no 
central spine. Glossodoris, Hhy. ..........00e0eeee0s D. verrucosa, Cuy. 
“f. Dorsal tentacles conical; oral tentacles leaf-shaped; branchiz each with 
several pinnate rays branching from a foot-stalk; cloak very large, flat 
and coriaceous. Lingual spines? dctinodoris, Ehr. D. cruenta, Qu. & G. 
‘«g.? With only two tentacles; branchis in front of anus, not surrounding it. 
Lingual spines? dctinocyclus, Bhy. .......-....00-00+ A. vetulinus, Bhr. 
“h,? Dorsal tentacles truncated ; branchie small; cloak large, carinated on the 
back. Lingual spines? Atagema, Gray............. D. carinata, Qu. & G.” 
So far as we at present know, perhaps 9 species may be referred to 
division a, one to division 6, four to ce, and two tod. Division e 
corresponds with the genus “ Doridigitata,’ D’Orbigny, or “ Glosso- 
doris,” Gray (non Ehrenberg), and includes four species. The group 
J, supposed to be synonymous with “ Actinedoris,” Ehr., can scarcely 
be maintained ; for many of the species which have been referred to 
it are probably Doridopside, and D. cruenta, which Alder and 
Hancock have taken for the type, undoubtedly belongs to the “ As- 
teronotus’’ group. Division / contains but one species. This ar- 
rangement gives no place to a large number of Dorides which have 
the common characters of a depressed coriaceous body, wide and 
granular mantle, rhinophores clavate and retractile in denticulate- 
edged sheaths, oral tentacles linear or slightly flattened, branchize 
six, retractile in a cavity protected by six lobular marginal processes, 
lingual spines simple, uniform, none central—and the type of which 
is Asteronotus hemprichii, Ehr. After using all the above sections, 
we should still have left some 90 species or so, which either do not 
fit into any of them, or which have been too scantily characterized 
for us to determine their position. A great many of the published 
descriptions of these animals are so meagre and superficial, often 
