“ Body ovate, mottled brown and white; along each side an. obsolete row of tubercles,
somewhat dilatable, extending from the tentacula to the vent: tentacula four, long, both pairs
originating from the upper part, and approximating; the anterior shortest, setiform, inclining
forwards; the other filiform, reflecting backwards, the same colour as the body: vent
situated near the extremity of the back, surrounded with eight or nine branched appendages.
Length three eighths of an inch. Rare.”
Montagu, whose short description we have inserted entire, is the only person who has
met with this obscure species, which requires further illustration.
16) Tbitonia alba.
We have occasionally obtained this new species at Cullercoats, in company with T. plebeia,
on masses of Alcyoniufii digitatum, brought in on the fishermen’s lines. In its characters it
approaches so nearly to T. Hombergii that we were for some time inclined to consider it the
young of that species; but as the individuals were always of small size, and no intermediate
examples were found connecting it with the adult T. Hombergii, which is very rarely brought
in on the fishing lines, and as the specimens found were constantly of a white colour, some
doubt might be considered to rest upon their supposed identity. The point has been satisfactorily
settled by an examination of the tongues of the two species. That of T. Hombergii
is very broad, and has the lateral spines all simple; the tongue of T. alba is narrower, and
has the spines, which are rather more slender than in the other species, branched or denticulated
on the outer margin. This difference could not be the result of age. But to satisfy
ourselves more fully upon this point, we have examined the tongue of the undoubted young of
T' Hombergii of the same size as T. alba, got along with the adult in Torbay, and find that the
spines have the same simple character as in the large specimens. There can be no doubt,
therefore, of their distinctness. We have not had an opportunity of comparing them
together, so as satisfactorily to define the points of difference in their external characters,
but speaking from recollection, we should say that the new species is rather flatter and less
tuberculated, the pallial ridge is more produced, the branchiae shorter and less perfectly laminated,
and that the veil has fewer digitations than in T. Hombergii of the same size. The
whole animal is also more delicate and transparent.
(17) SCYLLiEA PELAGICA.
Scyllcea pelagica, Linn., Syst. Nat., 12th ed., v. l,p . 1094.
Cuv., Ann. du Mus., v. 6, p. 416, pi. 61, figs. 1—7.
* For. and Hanl., Brit. Moll., v. 3, p. 584, pi. aaa, fig. 5.
We are unfortunately unable to add anything to the short description of this species
given in our Synopsis. A single specimen was sent to us in spirits by Mr. W. P. Cocks, of
Falmouth, in April, 184/, being one of three which he found alive among a large mass of seaweed
thrown up after a storm. They were attached to the frond of a weather-beaten
Laminaria bulbosa, from deep water, thrown upon the rocks near Pendennis Castle. Mr.
Cocks remarks that their appearance when alive was gelatinous, transparent, and of a light
cream-colour without markings. He kept them for three days in sea-water, but being unwell
vii
and unable to attend to them, was obliged to put them into spirits. We regret that we cannot
give a drawing of this interesting addition to our Fauna in a living state. From its known
pelagic habits, Scyllcea pelagica may perhaps be considered only an accidental visitant to our
shores, but it is worthy of remark that these examples were not found upon the floating Gulf
weed (Sargassum bacciferum), but upon one of our native algas, common in deep water. There
is a presumption, therefore, that the species may really be an inhabitant of our Atlantic
shores.
(18) Lomanotus, (XcJjua, border, and vwtoq, back.)
This genus, published by M. Verany in the ‘Revue Zoologique' in 1844, is synonymous with
our Eumenis, which did not appear until the following year. M. Verany’s name consequently
has the precedence and must be adopted.
(19) Eolis glauca.
Mr. Cocks has taken several examples of this fine species at Falmouth. We also got a
single individual while dredging near the entrance of the Menai Straits, off Beaumaris.
(20) Eolis coronata.
? Doris longicornis, Mont., in Linn. Trans., v. 9, p. 107, pi. 7, fig. 1.
Eolida plumosa, Flem., Brit. Anim., p. 285.
An inspection of the original sketch of Dr. Fleming’s E . plumosa induces us to think
that it is the young of E . coronata. The characters of the head and tentacles* exactly
correspond with this species, and the paucity of branchial papillae may be accounted for by
supposing the specimen to have been injured, as these organs very readily fall off.
With regard to the Doris longicornis of Montagu, we cannot speak with confidence, but
an examination of the southern coasts of Devonshire and Cornwall has brought to light no
species excepting Eolis coronata that could with any probability be referred to it. In Fowey
Harbour we got some large specimens of a curious variety of the latter. The branchiae were
of a less vivid red than usual, and they, as well as the back, were much spotted with pale
blue or bluish-white; in this particular agreeing with Montagu’s description of longicornis, in
which the “cirri” are stated to be of a pink colour spotted with white. His figure is so bad
that little reliance can be placed upon it. It appears, from its general contour, to represent
an Eolis of the section with clustered branchiae in which some of the anterior clusters had
fallen off, and one of them was in progress of being reproduced. The colour of these organs
shows a mixture of blue with the pink, in which also it agrees with E . coronata. We do not,
therefore, feel sufficient confidence in its distinctness to give the species a place in our
Synopsis, but shall insert Montagu’s description here as a guide for further investigation.
“Doris longicornis. Body long, slender, posterior end acuminated; head rounded in front:
* Dr. Fleming informs us that the word “ dextral” in the description of the tentacles is a
mistake of the printer, and ought to be “ distal.”