29 



18 



7-3 



10 



5—16 



28 



18—21 . 



7—9 



7 — 10 



6 — 17 



2/ 



18—21 



8 . 



9—10 



4 — 1 6 



26 



16 — 19 



7-8 



7—10 



6 — 17 



23 



2 1 — 2 2 



8 



8—9 



3—H 



2 2 



18—21 



7—9 



8 — 10 



2 — 16 



2 I 



23 



9 



9 — 10 



16 



20 



20—25 



8-9 



8-9 



15 



i7 



17 



9 



8-9 



15 



16 



18 



8 



8 



13 



15 



20 



8-9 



8-9 



L2— 17 



'3 



23 



8 



8 



'3—H 



1 2 



16 



7 



9 



I 2 



1 1 



18 



8 



8 



I I 



10 



20 



6 — io 



7-8 



9 1 2 



9 



2 2 



7—9 



6—8 



IO I I 



If not particularly well preserved, this species often has a strong resemblance under a 

 leps to pulchra and to hexaptera. Pulchra is however slenderer and its head is smaller, with 

 less neck; it also has a well-marked collarette. Enflata is generally distinguishable from 

 hexaptera by its greater diameter, larger head, more marked neck, and greater transparency; 

 its longitudinal muscles are almost imperceptible under a lens, those of hexaptera comparatively 

 conspicuous. The collarette also separates pulchra from hexaptera. In well preserved specimens, 

 these three species are of course readily separable. 



To the best of my belief, Doncaster's Gardineri was only based on large specimens 

 of enflata. 



Gardineri. 25. 20. 8 — 10. 12 — 16. 



enflata. 22 — 26. 16 — 22. 7 — 9. 12 — 17. 



Doncaster lays stress (owing probably to a remark of Grassi) on the longer ovaries of his 

 species, which I regard as useless for diagnosis; and on the greater number of teeth, which 

 does not appear to hold good when a large series of specimens is examined. He describes 

 the corona of Gardineri as pear-shaped, but figures it as shoe-shaped, that is to say, with a 

 constriction; in that condition, it seems to be intermediate between my figures 10 and 11. 



As to the relation between enflata and flaccida, there is not a single point in Conant's 

 very brief definition of his species which is not in agreement with the characters of enflata 

 given by Grassi and with those given above for the Siboga specimens. Whether Conant actually 

 had a separate species before him or not, the only reasonable place for flaccida at present is 

 in the synonymy of enflata. Doncaster (p. 211) records a single specimen of flaccida from the 

 Maldive Archipelago, and states (but without a figure) that its teeth were longer and more 

 slender than in enflata, which was not one of Conant's characters. The greater length of the 

 inner than of the outer teeth, mentioned by both Conant and Doncaster, is noticeable in 

 enflata and in many other species. 



SIBOGA-EXPEDITIE XXI. 



