222 MR. P. S. ABRAHAM ON THE | Mar. 6, 
97. CHroMoDORIS! CHRULEATA. 
Hemidoris ceruleata, Stimpson, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sec. Phil. vii. 
p. 379 (1855). 
Hab. China. 
Gen. Orovorts, Bergh, 1875. 
Mantle (nothzeum) somewhat as in Miamira, keeled above with 
transverse ribs; no frontal or caudal veils, or lateral lobes lamellate 
beneath. Foot rather narrow. Integument without spicules. Arma- 
ture of the oral aperture as in Méamira—a spinous buccal collar. 
Odontophore as in Miamira ; but the rachis is hardened’. ( Bergh.) 
O. mramrrana, Bgh. J. ec. Heft viii. p. 67, T. 7. f. 3-3, & T. 10. 
f. 9-20 (1875). 
Hab. Tahiti. 
Gen. Ceratoporis, Gray, 1850. 
Echinodoris, Bergh, 1874. 
Form rather depressed ; back everywhere covered with elongated 
papillae ; back and papille spiculose. Rhinophores and. branchize 
retractile. Odontophore with the pleurz multidentate. Penis armed 
at the apex with series of minute uncini. (Bergh.) 
Dr. Gray’s diagnosis is very scanty, and, with little doubt, incor- 
rect?. As M. Bergh remarks, Dr. Gray himself had not seen the 
animal for which he constituted the genus Ceratodoris. The name 
« Echinodoris”’ is decidedly more appropriate ; but this does not seem 
a sufficient reason for giving up the earlier appellation. 
C. Eouipa, Gray. 
Doris eolida, Quoy & Gaim. Voy. de l’Astr. Zool. ii. p. 263, 
pl. 18. f. 11-15. 
? Echinodoris eolida*’, Bgh. Journ. des Mus. Godeff. Heft vi. 
p. 109, T. 3. f. 4-20 (1874). 
Hab. Waigiou. 
Gen. Hexasrancuus, Ehr. 1831. 
? Heptabranchus, Adams, 1849. 
Rhacodoris, Morch, 1863 (part of). 
Body soft ; integument non-spiculose (?)*; rhinophores sharply 
bent, and with an anterior knee, retractile within marginated cavities ; 
1 Qrodoris, according to M. Bergh, is nearly related to his new genus 
Miamira, which, again, is closely allied to Casella. The large development 
of the mantle and the absence of marginal processes places the first among the 
Doridid, while the contrary characters approximate the two latter to the Poly- 
ceridz. Perhaps the three genera may be regarded as intermediate between 
Dorididz and Polyceride. 
2 Viz. “Tentacles elongate, filiform, not retractile.” 
8 Quoy and Gaimard’s appears to me a distinct species, judging from their 
description and figure of the rhinophores and papillz: the arrangement of the 
branchiz is also different. 
*T can find no spicules in the 29 specimens, representing 5 or 6 species, which 
I haye examined. 
