ADALARIA LOVJfiNI A. & H.
(Plate I, figs. 1 and 2j) ' r':
See Alder and Hancock 2, p. 262. v Bergh 18, pp. 234—237.
This species was described by Alder and Hancock (1. c.) as Doris loveni. Loven
distinguished two varieties of Doris muncata as a and (3 respectively. Alder and
Hancock justly observe that these two varieties are distinct species : in fact, according to
Bergh’s classification they belong to different genera. Variety /3 appears to be the
original Dons muncata of 0. F. Muller, 1829, and is a Lamellidoris. Variety a was
renamed Dons loveni by Alder and Hancock and is an Adalaria.
Hancock’s sketch of the animal here reproduced is not accompanied by any note as
to the locality where it was taken, but it is presumably the single specimen from Bantry
Bay noticed in the article referred to above. Bergh has since published a fuller
description based on fifteen examples from Bergen.
The species is described by Alder and Hancock1 as yellowish white and attains a
length of 15 mm. I t can be easily recognized by the huge tubercles with which the
dorsal surface is somewhat sparsely studded. They are soft but have an axis of spicules,
which is seen externally as a spot on the tip. Between-them are a few smaller tubercles.
The rhinophore cavities are protected by two large tubercles. The branchiaa are simply
pinnate, eight to ten in number and set in an incomplete circle. The space where this
circle is interrupted behind is filled by a large tubercle. This tubercle and some of the
others are constricted at the base so as to be almost stalked.
The other external characters and the anatomy are as usual in the genus. The
labial cuticle is somewhat thickened and prominent in the inferior median line. The
ingluvies buccalis is relatively large and set on a short stalk. The radula consists of from
forty-two to forty-six rows of teeth with a maximum formula of 12 + 1. 1 . 1 + 12. The
central tooth is a flat plate; the first lateral is large, hamate and smooth; the remaining
teeth are flat plates with the anterior edge jagged or denticulate.
LAMELLIDORIS (?) ULIDIANA A. & H.
(Plate II, figs. 6 and 7.)
The only notes on the drawings are “ Doris ulidiana, taken with oysters from Down
or Antrim. Mr. Thompson, see Appendix No. I.” This refers to the appendix to the
Monograph, pp. ii and iii, where the animal is described and distinguished from
L. diaphana, to which it is said to come very near., The differences noted are slight and
hardly of specific value, but the drawings of the two animals are not strikingly alike, and,
as Alder and Hancock after due comparison deliberately recognized L. ulidiana as a
distinct species, the figures are here reproduced.
1 Bergh had not seen the living animal.
As the buccal parts are unknown, the reference of the animal to Lamellidoris is merely
a conjecture, but it is very probable.
LAMELLIDORIS LUTEOGINCTA M. Sars.
(Plate II, figs. 8 and 9.)
See M. Sars, Om Christiania fjordens Fauna, in Nyt Mag. for Naturvidenskaberue, 1870,
pp. 189—191; and Farran 1, p. 4, under Dons beaumonti.
Mr. Farran (l. c.) describes the living animal as follows :
“ Four specimens of a brilliantly coloured little Doris, which has already been met
with by Mr. Beaumont at Port Erin and Valencia {loo. cit. p. 848), were taken at Ballyna-
kill among dead shells in Coastguard deep in six to eight fathoms. The first was found
in April, 1900, and was submitted to Mr. Beaumont, who stated it to be identical with his
specimens. As it appears to be still undescribed, I suggest the name D. Beaumonti for it.
The following is a description as far as it has been possible to make it out:
“ Length 4-5 mm. Back very high with edges of mantle elevated, slightly
upturned in preserved specimens. Tail thick, extending far beyond the mantle, with
well-marked keel. Head without tentacles, and not forming a distinct veil, but swollen
on either side of the mouth. Rhinophores with six or seven lamellge. Branchial plumes
Mr. Beaumont states he believes to be retractile, but I have been unable to convince
myself that this is the case. I t is difficult, however, on account of the very small size of
the animal to come to a satisfactory conclusion. They seem to be five or perhaps seven
in number, and simply pinnate, the anterior three being larger than the rest. Back
covered with rather distant, long, soft-looking tubercles, each supported by two or three
central spicules which do not project. Extending to the edge of the cloak at intervals
are long radial spicules, recalling somewhat in arrangement the ribs of an umbrella.
“ The ground colour is glistering white, intensified on the branchige and rhinophores
and on the median line of the tail. On the back, but not reaching to the margin, is a
regular network of reddish crimson, through the meshes ,of which the white tubercles
project. In young specimens the crimson pigment is present in the form of scattered
patches between the tubercles. Round the margin of the mantle at a little distance from
the edge is a narrow band of lemon yellow. Radula of the type found in Lamellidoris
and Goniodoris, with two large median denticles and two small lateral plates.”
I have not seen this animal alive, but have examined two preserved specimens from
Millport. They are 5 mm. and 3’5 mm. long respectively. The colour is translucent
yellow with traces of a border. The general appearance is as described by Mr. Farran.
The back bears sparse, soft, conical tubercles. The integuments contain small spicula, and
longer spicula are arranged radially round the mantle-margin. The foot is narrow. No
oral veil could be distinguished, but there is a distinct lump on either side of the mouth.
The rhinophores are invisible and it would seem completely retracted. The branchiee,
though small and difficult to see on account of their transparency, seem to be as usual in