26 AET. 1. — CHARLES ELIOT: 



seems probable that the disposition of the rhinophores is a 

 monstrosity. 15 ^The change by which the septnm dividing two 

 neighbouring pockets atrophies and leaves a single chamber is 

 notjgreat. On the other hand it is nnnsnal both in the Dorids 

 as a class and in Sphaerodoris in particular to find the rhinophore 

 pockets so close together that they can be described as being 

 divided by a partition. They are rather separate cavities excavat- 

 ed im. the] right and left sides of the dorsal surface and the space 

 between them is often filled by a crest or tubercles. It would 

 therefore seem that, even if the present specimen is a monstro- 

 sity, it presupposes an unusual arrangement of the rhinophore 

 pockets. But it is useless to speculate on a question which can 

 be decided only by the examination of further specimens. 



If the animal is regarded as a Sphaerodoris with teratological 

 features, there still remains the question whether it is a new 

 species or not. It can hardly be Sph. punctata or Sph. papillata 

 but it may possibly be a large specimen of Sph. Icevis or of 

 Ehrenberg's Actinocyclus verrucosus. The specimens of Sph. Icevis 

 which have been described are all about 30 mm. in length, with 

 14 branchiae and a radula having a formula of about 80 x 25.0.25. 

 The back is on the whole smooth but shows in some specimens 

 shallow pits and irregular low excrescences. This specimen being 

 twice the size of the others may possibly represent the mature 

 stage of the animal in which the dorsal tubercles are more 

 developed, the branchiœ more numerous, the radula larger and the 

 individual teeth more copiously serrulated. At the some time 

 the external appearance is quite unlike Sph. Icevis and the radula 

 is sufficiently distinctive and so, while not denying that Sph. 

 Icevis may the young of the present form, I think that the 

 phases of the transformation require demonstration and therefore 

 name the present specimen Sph. japonica. 



1) Compare the animal described by me in Proc. Malac. Soc. 1905 p. 233 as Chromodoridello, 

 mirabilis ■with a warning that it might prove to be a monstrosity. I am now still more inclined 

 to regard it as one, since no similar specimens have been observed. 



