1906.] OF SOUTHEEX IXDIA AXD CEYLOX. 637 



many are useless. Kelaart's specimens are marked as snch, 

 apparently in Hancock's writing, and generic and specific names 

 are usually but not invariably appended. 



(c) A collection designated by the label " Madras (or India) 

 1 867. Sir Walter Elliot." This collection does not aiDjjear to 

 have been sorted or named by Alder and Hancock. Besides 

 Nudibranchs, it contains Tectibranchs, Pulmonates, Lamella ididfe, 

 and Echinoderms. 



The drawings consist of figures of about 55 species of Kudi- 

 branchs made fi'om life by Kelaart in Ceylon. Thirty- five of 

 these figures are now reproduced. The rest have been left aside, 

 in most cases because other figures of the animals which they 

 represent have been published, but in a few cases because they 

 add nothing to the printed description. The poorly executed 

 figure of Doris cerisa, for example, adds nothing to Kelaart's state- 

 ment that it is a small Doris of a cherry-red colour. 



It may be asked whether it is worth while to j)ublish these old 

 drawings. Bergh seems inclined to think that it would be better 

 to leave aside all inadequate descrijDtions of Nudibranchs and 

 pay no attention to them. This would be convenient if it were 

 practically jDossible, and little would be lost. But is it practically 

 possible ? Bergh's own lists contain a selection of Kelaai't's 

 names, and yet I think he has sometimes redescribed Kelaart's 

 species under other names, which he would hardly have done if 

 he had seen the drawings. Further, there is a great practical 

 advantage in giving animals old names, because they are less liable 

 to alteration. If a nudibranch bears a name given by Kelaart, it 

 need not be i-ebaptized if it is found to be identical with species 

 imperfectly described by Pease, Angas, Abraham, and others. 



Apart from this, Kelaart is by no means an authoiity to be 

 despised, though he has not found favour with many of his critics. 

 He totally ignored anatomy, and his descriptions of external 

 characters have not that wealth and precision of detail which 

 might be desired. But he is exact in recording localities and 

 seasons, and he adds many notes on the habits of the animals, 

 particularly on their spawn. His papers are of little service to 

 the student of preserved specimens, but, taken together with his 

 drawings, they wiU probably enable a naturalist in Ceylon to 

 identif}^ most of his species. They appear to have been published 

 three times : — 



(a) As a pamphlet (pp. 1-64), dated " Trincomalie. 1st Novem- 



ber, 1857." I have a copy of this pamphlet, which I have 

 used in preparing the present paper. 



(b) In the Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Boyal Asiatic 



Society in 1858. 



(c) In the Annals and Magazine of ISTatural History, 1859, in 



three separate papers : — 



I. Ann. & Mag. 1859, vol. iii. pp. 291-304. 



II. „ „ „ vol. iii. pp. 388-496. 



III. „ „ „ vol. iv. pp. 267-270. 



