1911] Micliael : ('hactofj)iat]ia of the San Diego Begion. 'M 



Furthermore, the nature of the vestibular ridge (pi. 3, figs. 16, 

 17), while totally different from nearly all other species, is 

 precisely the same in the two forms. 



Broch (1906) says that S. gigantea seems to resemble H. 

 ivhartoni but differs in size, smaller number of seizing jaws, and 

 larger number of teeth. Fowler (1896) records 3 to 5 as the 

 variation in number of anterior teeth of S. whartoni. In two of 

 the three specimens of S. gigantea considered in table 6, the 

 teeth are 5-4 and 6-5, a difference of only one tooth from the 

 number reported by Fowler (1896). Broch (1906) finds from 

 7 to 8 posterior teeth but, in the above specimens, I have been 

 unable to discover more than 6. Even if 8 were frequently 

 present there would be only one more tooth than is recorded by 

 Fowler (1896) for S. whartoni. Again, some of the San Diego 

 specimens of -S*. Igra bear 9 seizing jaws on each side of the 

 head which otherwise agree perfectly with S. gigantea, except in 

 their smaller size. AVith such similarity the identity of 8. 

 gigantea with S. tijra seems quite evident. 



Through the courtesy of the United States National IMuseiim 

 I have had the privilege of examining three specimens of 

 Spadella maxima Conant. That they are identical with the San 

 Diego material there is not the slightest doubt. In fact the 

 agreement is so close that I am unable to detect any differences 

 except that in S. maxima the vestibular papillae are more uni- 

 formly provided with barbs than is true of the S. lyra from San 

 Diego. 



Through a letter received from Dr. Rudolph von Ritter- 

 Zahony I find that he agrees with me in regarding S. ivhar- 

 toni, S. gigantea, and S. maxima as synonyms (see also Ritter- 

 Zahony. 1910. p. 264). but fails to understand how I can 

 identify them with S. lyra. He says: "Ich begreife nicht wie 

 Sie die Species [S. tijra] mit S. whartoni, und 8. gigantea ver- 

 einigen konnen, da aus dem Beschreibungen Fowler's und 

 Broch 's sieh ja schon bedeutende Unterschiede ergeben." The 

 only differences mentioned in these two papers by Fowler 

 (1896) and Broch (1906) have already been considered suffi- 

 ciently to indicate that the differences are not so significant 

 as might at first appear. Furthermore, I have sent three of 



