o'donoghue : nudibratstchiate mollusca. 137 



(12, p. 78) described an allied form from Monterey, whichi lie named 

 Triopa carpenteri. 



Abraham also cites these two species as Triopa catalincB and 

 carpenteri in 1877 (I, p. 230). 



Bergb in 1880 (2, p. 112) discussed the generic characters of the 

 second of these forms, and pointed out that, while it agrees with the 

 Triopa of Johnston in certain characters, it, nevertheless, differs 

 in certain important particulars, and he created for it a new genus 

 Triopha, which has subsequently been accepted. At the same time 

 he described another species T. modesta, but suggested that further 

 examination might show that it was identical with T. carpenteri. 

 The same author in 1894 (3, p. 184) gave a fuller description of the 

 animal and here definitely placed T. carpenteri as a synonym, 

 though I cannot understand why he did this, for obviously if the 

 forms were identical, then the name of the species would have to be 

 T. carpenteri, for this name was applied in 1873 and, therefore, had 

 priority. However, subsequent work showed that he was in error, 

 and the two forms are distinct. 



MacFarland, in 1905 (8, p. 48), gave a preliminary account and in 

 1906 (9, p. 135) a more detailed description of T. carpenteri, in which 

 he shows clearly that the animal, while similar to T. modesta in 

 many ways, is undoubtedly specifically distinct, and both names, 

 therefore, stand as representing valid species. In the same papers 

 MacFarland described two new species, namely, Triopha maculata 

 (8, p. 49, and 9, p. 137) and T. grandis (8, p. 50, and 9, p. 139). 



The next authors to deal with the genus were Cockerell and Eliot 

 in 1905 (6, p. 42), who described a specimen from San Pedro which 

 they referred to the genus Triopha, but did not give any specific 

 name, as they lacked notes on the living animal. The former author 

 in a brief list of the Mollusca of La Jolla (5, p. 107) appends a note 

 to say that he recovered the notes on the external characters and 

 proposed to name the species T. aurantiaca. Cockerell, again, in 

 1915 (4, p. 228) describes yet another species, calling it Triopha 

 scrippsiana, and mentions T. aurantiaca without, however, giving 

 any reference to his previous paper. 



In 1921, O'Donoghue (10, p. 165) examined a number of specimens 

 of a Triopha which was found to be identical with the Triopha sp. ? 

 of Cockerell and Eliot, and the additional data there given was 

 thought sufficient to merit its being retained as a species under the 

 name T. elioti. This name was also used in dealing with the species 

 subsequently (11). When the above were written, the author was 

 unaware of the note appended by Cockerell to his list of the Mollusca 

 of La Jolla, but it is obvious from this that the true name of the 

 species is Triopha aurantiaca, and T. elioti is to be regarded as a 

 synonym. 



The genus Triopha has so far only been recorded from the Pacific 

 coast of North America, where it is represented by a series of forms 



VOL. XV. — DECEMBER, 1922. 10 



