148 PROCEEDINGS OP THE MALACOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 



Adams (1, p. 71) in November, 1854. Cooper in 1863 (5, p. 60) 

 recorded a form from Santa Barbara, which he thinks is probably 

 the C. leonina of Gould, and he gave a short description of it. This 

 account, however, is so imperfect that the identity of the animal is 

 doubtful : it cannot be referred to any other form and appears to 

 belong to the genus, so that it probably does represent C. leonina. 



It was njentioned again in 1888 by Fewkes from Monterey, as 

 Chiorcea leontina [sic] (6, p. 45). In 1904 Bergh (9) described a 

 Melihe pellucida from the coast of Washington, near the mouth 

 of the Columbia Eiver. He also gives an incomplete description of 

 it, but so far as he goes there seems to be no reason for separating 

 it from the forms previously described, and so his name is to be 

 regarded as a synonym. 



Heath in " The Anatomy of an Eolid, Chiorccra clalli" in 1917 

 (8, pp. 137-148) describes as a new species a form which he separates 

 from the C. leonina of Gould, on the ground of the lack of a lamellated 

 rhinophore clavus. It is recorded from Rose Inlet, Dall Island, 

 South-eastern Alaska ; from Hecate Strait, Prince of Wales Island ; 

 and from Echo Harbour and Sewell Inlet, Queen Charlotte Islands. 

 This paper deserves some consideration, since it is the first detailed 

 account of a member of the genus from the Pacific Coast of North 

 America. In the first place, the term " Eolid " in the title is used 

 very loosely, for the animal is not a member of the genus Molidia, 

 nor of the family iEolididse, but undoubtedly falls in the family 

 Tethymelibidse. The author, strangely enough, does not appear to 

 have paid the least attention to any other paper, save that of Gould, 

 and yet various members of the family have been dealt with by a 

 number of authorities on the group. At the bottom of p. 143 he 

 refers to what he terms the " otocyst ", but even from his imperfect 

 description it is obvious that he is dealing with the eye. 



The rest of the account of the structure, habits, and habitat of 

 the animal agrees in practically all its details with the form 

 described by Gould as Chiorcera leonina. He appears to have been 

 unfortunate in his examination of the alimentary canal, which he 

 always found empty save in one case, where a few diatoms were 

 present. It is not at all uncommon to find the gizzard full of small 

 crustaceans (Copepoda, Amphipoda, etc.), a fact that Kjerschow- 

 Agersborg has also pointed out (9, p. 272, and 10, p. 229). 



The sole difference upon which Heath erects his species is that 

 " Unlike Chiorwra leonina, the dorsal tentacles are not retractile,, 

 and in preserved material are plain, muscular, foliaceous outgrowths. 

 Gould states that the tentacles of C. leonina bear on their anterior 

 margin ' an opaque, whitish papilla, presenting something of a 

 spiral or lamellar structure '. Nothing of the kind has been found to 

 exist in the present species ". 



Gould's description of the species is vague in several respects, 

 but when he says the " cephalic tentacles foliate, retractile ", he is 



