NUDIBRANCHIATA OF THE L.M.B.C. DISTRICT. 229 
anatomy of Dendronotus, which in some respects supple- 
ment and correct the older account. 
~ Both Alder and Hancock and Bergh describe and figure 
the liver of Dendronotus as giving off branched prolonga- 
tions, which run upwards into the rhinophores (the dorsal 
tentacles) and other dorsal processes. Alder and Hancock 
show them as conspicuous prolongations from each side 
of the liver, while Bergh represents these hepatic ceca as 
being of large size in the terminal twigs of the cerata or 
dorsal papille, occupying more than half the diameter 
of the stem and branches. He does not figure their 
basal parts. 
In our specimens from Hilbre Island, however, we do 
-not find, either in dissections or in thin transverse and 
longitudinal sections, any trace of prolongations from the 
liver extending actually into the rhinophores and the 
dorsal papille. 
Alder and Hancock’s description and figures of the 
anatomy of the liver are not quite correct. They speak 
of its central trunk lying ‘‘above the ovarium, and 
not below it as in Holis.” This is not the case. In 
Dendronotus, jast as in some species of Holts, the liver 
hes below, or ventrally to, the ovo-testis, as we show in 
our transverse section (Pl. XII., fig. 2, 0.¢. and /.). Then 
in their figure 2 (loc. cit. fam. 3, pl. 2), they do not 
represent correctly the three regions since described very 
fully and accurately by Bergh as the right and left anterior 
and the posterior lobes. 
Bergh, while giving a correct account of the liver itself, 
has described ‘in addition a system of prolongations into 
the dorsal papille which we are convinced from our 
sections has no existence. Dissections alone are mis- 
leading in this matter, and if the distinguished zoologists 
whose results we venture to controvert have worked 
