OPISTHOBRANCHIATA FEOM THE ABROLHOS ISLANDS. 561 
DoRiDOPSis Alder & Hancock, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. vol. v. pt. 3, 1864, p. 125. 
Tj'pe by original designation, D. gemmacea Aid. & Hancock. 
Haustelt^odobis Pea-se, Amer. Jour. Conob. vol. vi. 1871, p. 299, for the 
Doridiopsis of Alder & Hancock. 
Doriopsis, the generally accepted name for this genus, was introduced by 
Pease, 1860 (62), who failed to give a satisfactory definition of the genus. Of 
it Bergh (11, p. 83) says : " Da.s Geschlecht Doriopsis wurde von Pease in der 
gewohnlichen Art des Heeres von Art- nnd Greschlechte-Fabrikanten niit 
ganz flaschen Characteren schon in 1860 aufgestellt." 
Four years later Alder and Hancock (6) more accurately described the same 
genus, but gave it the name Doridopsis, without, however, referring to Pease's 
genus or species. Again, the following year Hancock (46) gave a detailed 
description of the genus, also without reference to the work of Pease. The 
latter author in 1871 re-affirmed his genus, claimed that the genus of Alder 
and Hancock was not identical, and suggested for their genus the name 
Haustellodoris. There can be no doubt, however, that all the species of both 
authors belong to the same genus. 
However, Ehrenberg in 1831 had founded the genus Dendrodoris for two 
species, one of which (D. lugubris) was subsequently designated the type by 
Gray (44, p. 16-1). Bergh (18, p. 21) points out that Ehrenberg's definition 
of the genus is incomplete and unsiitisfactory, although both the species 
included within it are recognisable and without doubt belong to the genus 
subsequently termed Doriopds. He further says {I. c. p. 22), " Es liegt daher 
um so mehr wohl keiu Grund vor, die Benennung Dendrodoris fiir die durch 
Hancock und durch mich jetzt so gut bekannten Doriopsen zu restituiren." 
This is a strange line of reasoning to follow, for, in the first place, Hancock 
uses the term Doridopsis, not Doriopsis, and was not the author of either 
name. Secondly, while admitting that both Ehrenberg's original species 
belong to the genus under discussion, Bergh prefers to adopt a much later 
term, not simply incompletely defined, but actually with "ganz flaschen 
Characteren." 
There seems little doubt that the genus should stand Dendrodoris Ehrenb. 
with D. lugubris Ehrenb. as the type by subsequent designation, and so the 
name of the family also needs to be altered to Dendrodorididse. 
It is interesting to note that the same species is described under the same 
name, Doris lugubris, by Gravenhorst (43 a) in the same year, 1831. I have 
been unable to ascertain whether Gravenhorst's or Ehrenberg's name has 
priority, but, in any case, it does not alter the generic name. 
Species Dendrodoris nigra (Stimpson), Pi'oc. Fhilad. Acad. Nat. Sci. 
vol. vii. 1855, p. 380. 
Sjnonj'my : Doris nigra Stimpson, 1855. 
Doriopsis nigra auct. 
Doridopsis nigra auct. 
Body. The body is of moderate size, elliptical, and somewhat depressed. 
The dorsal surface is finely granidate, while the mantle is more smooth. The 
LINN. JOURN. — ZOOLOGY, VOL, XXXV. 40 
