84 JOURNAL OK CONCHOI.OliY, VOL. 12, NO. 3, JULY, I907. 



tical, and the contents aie hard. Tlie duct leading from the 

 spermatotheca to the external female orifice is long, convoluted in the 

 upper part, but straighter and broader near the orifice. In this 

 lower part are folds, tubercles, and prominences, which look like 

 scales, but apparently no hard armature. Near the female orifice is 

 a large vestibular gland, with a laminated interior, and (it would seem) 

 another gland containing a hard stylet. These two glands appear to 

 be separate, but owing to the hardened condition of the tissues and 

 the presence of numerous parasites, their relations could not be 

 determined with certainty. The mucus gland opens into a broad 

 tube. 



The chief characters of the animal described above seem clear. It 

 is of hard consistence, with large simple tubercles or warts on the 

 back and tripiimate branchife. The labial armature and radula, which 

 has denticulate and differentiated teeth, are much as in Chromodoris. 

 The stomach is enclosed in the liver, the male genitalia are armed 

 with spines, and there is a prostate. The oral tentacles are large, and 

 there are small tubercles on the lower side of the mantle. 



These characters do not entirely coincide with those assigned to 

 any of the established genera, but at the same time do not seem to 

 me sufficiently divergent to justify the creation of a new genus. In 

 many points the animal agrees with Chroniodoris, but its general 

 habitus is altogether dissimilar,' and it has also tripinnate branchicS 

 and an armature on the male organs. These two latter characters 

 also distinguish it from Sphcerodoris, from which it further differs in 

 the details of its dentition, and in having large tentacles. It has 

 also many of the characters of Cadlina, but Cadlina has a median 

 tooth, and though some of the species are tuberculate (especially 

 C. viarginata and C. flavoinaailata) the tubercles do not assume the 

 proportions shown by these specimens. On the whole it is perhaps 

 best assigned to ArtacluTa. It differs from the only described species 

 of that genus {A. 7'nbida Bergh) in three chief points. Firstly, it has 

 a, labial armature, but it is inconspicuous and slightly developed. 

 Secondly, not only are the teeth of the radula denticulate, but, as ill 

 Chromfldflris, the innermost laterals are broad and denticulate on both 

 sides, whereas in A. rnbida only the teeth in the outer half of the 

 rows are finely serrulated. But Bergh's plates (I.e.) represent the 

 innermost teeth as having a projection on the inner side, although it 

 does not bear denticulations as in these specimens. Thirdly, it has a 

 prostate, which seems to be absent in A. rubida. I think the genera 

 Artachiea, Cadliva, Sphcprodon's, and such forms as Chromodoris 

 scabrmscnla are more nearly allied than is suggested by Bergh's 



I But the anomalous Chr. scahritiscnla Bergh has a hard coimistency and a tuberculate 

 back. 



