244 JOURNAL OF CONCHOLOGY, VOL. II, NO. 8, OCTOBER, I905. 



"meeting in a point behind tiie branchiae, and thence forming a 

 sh'ght crest to the tail." The "two lobes before the dorsal tentacles," 

 however, were not visible, the mantle edge appearing to be rounded 

 in this part. On the surface of the back, between the branchiae and 

 rhinophores, are four ridges which may, however, be merely wrinkles 

 caused by the preserving fluid, as the specimen is clearly contracted. 

 The rhinophores are. large, perfoliate, with no trace of pockets. The 

 branchiae appear to be three, entirely unconnected with one another, 

 one on each side and one anterior, distant 4 mm. from the others. 

 The side branchiae are very large and strong, resembling valves with 

 five lobes. What I interpret as the anterior branchia is so small that 

 its nature is doubtful, and it may be merely the jagged termination of 

 a ridge. A rough pencil sketch which accompanies the specimen 

 represents two large feathery branchiae only, one on each side, but as 

 two is a very rare if not unique number for these organs, the presence 

 of a third plume seems probable. The foot is very narrow and 

 grooved in front. The head and oral tentacles are retracted and not 

 large. 



The buccal mass is minute, but the buccal crop attached to it by a 

 short stalk is clearly visible. A careful examination, however, failed 

 to detect a labial armature. Alder & Hancock found none in G. 

 cit?-!tin, and according to Bergh's description it is hardly present in 

 G. cdstanea. The minute radula consists of 32 rows of transparent 

 teeth with the formula i + x. o. i + i. The innermost teeth are 

 relatively large, hamate, indented behind near the base, with a 

 rather solid body but slender hook, which has a projecting margin 

 without denticulations. The outermost teeth were very small and 

 flat, but with a minute hook, as in G. casfauca. 



S 



Goniocifl7-is niodesia. — n, half a row of teeth ; /', first tooth separately ; c, second 

 tooth separately. 



This form a[)pears to be a Gofiiodon's, and to agree both in colour 

 and .shape with G. mndesfa, but the branchiae are neither as described 

 by Alder & Hancock, nor as usual in the genus. Alder & Hancock 



