670 SIR c. ELIOT ON NUDiBRANCHS [June 19, 



the large branchiae. Pease's T. picta (Amer. Journ. of Conch. 

 1871, vol. vi. p. 301) is perhaps a synonym, since it has a similar 

 coloration and the " branchial star large .... wider than the 

 body." Perhaps also Riippell & Leuckart's Doris impudica (1828) 

 is the same species. If this can be proved, the specific name has 

 priority. 



The Newcastle collection contains a good coloured drawing by 

 Kelaart, which is not reproduced here since it has already been 

 published in black and white in the Ann. & Mag. of ISTat. Hist. 

 \l. c). See also the coloured edition of H. & A. Adams's ' Genera 

 of Recent MoUusca,' pi. cxxxvii. fig. 14. 



Kalinga a. & H. 



This remarkable genus was regarded by its discoverers. Alder and 

 Hancock, as intermediate between Euplocamus and Plocamo- 

 pherus, but it does not possess the characteristic conformation of 

 the radula and prostate which distinguishes those genera. There 

 can be no doubt, however, that it belongs to the Polyceridse. 

 Externally it difiers from most members of the family in its 

 somewhat doridiform shape, the absence of a tail, and in having 

 its branchiae entirely separate from one another, much as in 

 Hexahranchus'^ and Bathydoris. In the Dorididse phanero- 

 branchiatse, where the gills are not retractile, the complete 

 isolation of the separate plumes does not necessarily imply any 

 considerable structural change, but it may be a survival of an 

 arrangement which is more primitive than the symmetrical 

 circuit of united branchias. 



The genitalia, so far as they are known, seem to be of the type 

 found in Polycera and its allies, but the shape of the glans penis 

 is unusual and resembles that of Phialodoris. The radula difiers 

 from those of all known nudibranchs. It is very broad and com- 

 posed of very numerous tricuspid teeth. The specimens here 

 examined indicate that the buccal organs are of extraordinary 

 size and strength, though it is hard to say what may be their 

 natural position and modus operandi. 



Kalinga ornata A. & H. (Plate XLVII. fig. 2.) 



(A. & H. I.e. pp. 134-6. Bergh in Semper's Reisen, xvii. 

 pp. 959-962. Farran, 1. c. p. 347.) 



The Newcastle collection contains three pooi-ly preserved 

 specimens, which are the types used by Alder and Hancock for 

 their description published in 1864, and also a very large specimen, 

 relatively well preserved, and labelled " Sir W. Elliot, Madras, 



* The descriptions of the gills of HexabrancJms are often most misleading, for 

 they state that the organs are retractile into separate cavities or pockets, the natural 

 meaning of which is that each branchia has a separate parmanent cavitj- into which 

 it can be retracted. But in reality there are no such cavities. The plumes are con- 

 tractile separately, and when they contract, the skin, being soft, forms a temporary 

 hollow at their bases. But they do not disappear into a pocket, and when they 

 spread out again the hollow vanishes. 



