1906.] OF SOUTHERN INDIA AXD CEYLOX. 687 



and three of them have been ah-eady opened. Nearly ail the 

 papillae have been detached, but are preserved separately. 



The specimens are dark brownish green, from 15 to 20 mm. 

 long, and from 5 to 7 mm. wide. The papillae are greenish. The 

 largest have a stalk about 2'5 mm. long, and the foliaceous expan- 

 sion at the top measures about 6 mm. by 5 mm. The edge of the 

 expanded part is symmetrically indented ; from the funnel at 

 its base radiate about five raised tuberculate lines, some of Avhich 

 bifurcate or trifurcate. The grooved and bifid rhinophores are 

 still quite plain, as are also the grooved tentacles below them. 

 From these tentacles runs down a ridge on either side, which seems 

 to mark off the head from the rest of the body. The large tubular 

 anal papilla is on the right side a little below the dorsal margin, 

 and 4-5 mm. from the anterior end. The lateral margins of the 

 foot are expanded ; the anterior margin appears to be grooved. 

 There is no trace of any transverse division of the sole, as in 

 Cyerce. 



The state of the internal organs rendered dissection impossible, 

 but the long pinkish buccal crop was still discernible. The radula 

 consists of 37 teeth, the number mentioned by Alder and Hancock, 

 arranged in a spiral like that represented by Bergh {I. c. plate vii. 

 figs. 2, 3). The outline of the teeth is as represented by Bei'gh 

 {\h. fig. 4), and they bear 15-18 blunt, truncate denticles. The 

 first four at the base of the spiral are mere plates ; the rest are 

 perfectly formed and increase rapidly in size. 



According to both the statements and drawings of Alder & 

 Hancock and Kelaart, the dorsal papillae pass round the head 

 and in front of the rhinojDhores, which they do not do in the 

 other known species referred to Phyllohranchus. The preserved 

 specimens do not throw much light on^this point. None of them 

 has any papillfe in front of the rhinophores, but it is impossible 

 to say that such papillfe have not fallen ofi\ On the other hand, 

 a comparison with the specimens of Phyl. 2)7-asi7ius collected by 

 me in Zanzibar suggests that the conformation of the head-parts 

 is precisely the same. It is also noticeable that Alder and Hancock 

 complain that the specimens were too hard and brittle for ana- 

 tomical examination. This suggests that they were then in much 

 the same condition that they are now, and that Alder and Hancock 

 merely repeated Kelaart's statement as to the papiUae extending 

 round the head. They no doubt extend up to the lappets con- 

 nected with the oral tentacles, and, when the animal retracts its 

 head and assumes a circular form, might appear to surround the 

 rhinophores. But it is remarkable that both Kelaart and the 

 Indian artist, whose di'awings are certainly not copied from one 

 another, agree in representing the papillae as ai-ising in front of 

 the rhinophores. It is also probable that Kelaart referred the 

 animal to Proctonotus because he thought that the papillae passed 

 round the head. 



Nevertheless, I think it likely that this species is identical with 

 Phyl. prasinus and Phyl. ruhicundus, which do not appear to be 

 differentiated by any marked characters. Kelaart's draAving is 



Proc. Zool. Soc— 1906, No. XLYI. 46 



