1906.] OF SOUTHERN INDIA AND CEYLON. 685 



In general appearance the animal must be something like 

 Pleurojjhyllidia formosa, but is probably of a more uniform light 

 rose-colour. 



Phidiana unilineata (A. & H.). (Plate XLYII. fig. 1.) 

 (A. & H. 1. c. p. 143. Bergh, System, p. 1031.) 



Six specimens are preserved, but have become completely dry 

 and hard. No characters could be ascertained except the buccal 

 parts, which were found in one specimen. 



The jaws are rather long and narrow, somewhat decayed, but 

 showing in places a row of large distinct denticles. 



Twelve teeth were found. They are yellow and bear from 6 

 to 9 (PI. XLYII. fig. 1) denticles on either side, the highest of 

 which is on the central cusp. The number of denticles often 

 appears to be only seven when it is really more, because the 

 additional denticles are very small. 



This form seems to be clearly a Phidiana. 



Samla bicolor (Kelaart). (Plate XLV. fig. 4.) 

 = Samla anmoUgera Bergh. 



{jEolis hicolor Kelaart, 1. c. II. p. 490. Bergh, Schauinsland's 

 Raise nach der Pacific : Die Opisthobranchier, pp. 236-9.) 



If reliance can be placed on external characteristics, these two 

 forms are undoubtedly identical as they agree both in shape and 

 colour. Not only are the arrangement* and coloration of the 

 cei'ata the same, but both have the oral tentacles strongly developed 

 and rhinophores with a short stalk and perfoliate club. It only 

 remains to ascertain that Eolis hicolor has a triseriate radula. It 

 is said to be found among seaweed in Back Bay, Trincomalee, 

 and will be easily recognisable. 



The genus Samla, founded on a single specimen, differs from 

 Flahelliaa only in having the corners of the foot rounded and no 

 penial armature. It may be doubted if these characters are of 

 more than subgenei-ic value. 



EoLis SMEDLEYi Kelaart. (Plate XLY. fig. 5.) 

 (Kelaart, 1. c. II. p. 492.) 



The ringed rhinophores and tentacular processes of the foot 

 indicate that this is probably a Facelina, and the large oral 

 tentacles and disposition of the cerata are in keeping with the 

 supposition. But none of Kelaart's Aeolids (with the exception 

 of E. hicolor) can be identified with known forms or refei-red to 

 modern genera with any certainty. This is not the fault of his 

 drawings (which are better than those of the Dorids), but is due 

 to the fact that most tropical Aeolids have been described from 

 preserved specimens. The external appearance in life is often 

 wholly unknown, for they lose their colour and shape in alcohol 

 even more completely than Dorids. 



* Kelaart's statement that the anterior clusters are "composed of 34 or more 

 branchiae, the others of two rarely of three," is clearly a misprint for " three, four, 



