Geitodoris Bergh, 1891: 130 Doris complanata Verrill, 1880 Carryodoris Vayssière, 1919: 67 Carryodoris joubini Vayssière, 1919 Verrillia Ortea & Ballesteros, 1981: 341 Geitodoris bonosi Ortea & Ballesteros, 1981 A phylogenetic analysis and systematic revision of the cryptobranch dorids (Mollusca, Nudibranchia, Anthobranchia) Valdés, Ángel Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 2002 2002-12-31 136 4 535 636 7P39X 763138 BERGH, 1891 Bergh 1891 [340,649,676,700] Gastropoda Discodorididae Geitodoris Animalia Nudibranchia 64 599 Mollusca genus      Geitodoris Bergh, 1891: 130. Type species:  Doris complanata Verrill, 1880, by monotypy.     Carryodoris Vayssière, 1919: 67. Type species:  Carryodoris joubini Vayssière, 1919, by original designation.     Verrillia Ortea & Ballesteros, 1981: 341. Type species  Geitodoris bonosi Ortea & Ballesteros, 1981, by monotypy.   Diagnosis Dorsum covered with simple tubercles, stiffened by integumentary spicules, which occasionally protrude from the dorsal surface in an irregular fashion. Head with two conical oral tentacles. Anterior border of the foot grooved and notched. Labial armature armed with jaw elements. Radula composed of hamate teeth, occasionally denticulate. Outermost lateral teeth multidenticulate. Reproductive system with a flattened, granular prostate, having two well differentiated regions. Penis and vagina devoid of hooks. There is a peduculate accessory gland, in some species armed with several copulatory hard structures.   Remarks  Bergh (1891)introduced the genus  Geitodorisbased on  Doris complanata Verrill, 1880, typespecies by monotypy, with a very short Latin description. According to Bergh (1891)  Geitodorisis characterized by having the labium of the anterior border of the foot notched in the middle, the inner lateral teeth strong, hamate and outermost slender, multidenticulate, and by lacking a differentiated prostate. This diagnosis was based on Verrill’s (1880)original description of  Doris complanata, rather than on newly examined specimens. Bergh (1894)completed the description of  Geitodoriswith anatomical studies based on one of Verrill’s original specimens.  Eliot (1906b)considered  Geitodoristo be similar to  Rostangaandalso closely related to some archidorids, such as  Archidoris stellifera Vayssière, 1904. In contrast, Odhner (1926)speculated that  Geitodorisis closely related to  Discodoris, and is distinguished from it by the peculiar form of the outer radular teeth. He also noted other diagnostic characteristics of  Geitodoris: the unarmed penis, absence of prostate and stomach, presence of jaws, anterior border of the foot notched and finger-like oral tentacles.  Vayssière (1919)described the genus  Carryodorisfor the new species  Carryodoris joubini Vayssière, 1919. In his description he did not mention  Geitodorisor refer to the papers by Bergh (1891), Eliot (1906b)or Odhner (1926).  Carryodoriswas characterized by the presence of jaws with small rodlets and a radula with spatula-shaped outermost lateral teeth. Other features of this genus are the anterior border of the foot notched, perfoliate rhinophores and tripinnate branchial leaves.  Schmekel (1973)described a new species of  Carryodorisfrom the Mediterranean, and considered this genus to be distinct from  Geitodoris. She based her conclusion on two major differences between these two taxa, the absence of a differentiated prostate in  Geitodoris, which is present in  Carryodoris, and the absence of denticles on the outermost lateral teeth of  Geitodoris, also present in  Carryodoris. She also transferred  Geitodoris ohshimaiBaba, 1926to this genus.  Ortea & Ballesteros (1981)regarded  Carryodorisas a subgenus of  Geitodoris. According to these authors, the name  Geitodorisshould be used for  G. complanataand other species with smooth lateral teeth and lacking a differentiated prostate and  Carryodorisfor species with denticulate lateral teeth an a differentiated prostate. In addition, Ortea & Ballesteros (1981)described the new subgenus  Verrilliafor  Geitodoris bonosi, which has smooth lateral teeth and a differentiated prostate. Other authors ( Perrone, 1984; Cervera, García-Gómez & García, 1985; Miller, 1996) followed this classification including three different subgenera, in subsequent papers. Martínez, Ortea & Ballesteros et al. (1996)considered that the presence of denticles on the lateral teeth of  Geitodoris‘should be considered as a specific character rather than a generic one’, but at the same time continued using the same classification. An anatomical study of  G. complanata, the typespecies of  Geitodoris, shows that this species has a well developed prostate and therefore there are virtually no differences between  Geitodorisand  Verrillia. I agree with most of the authors mentioned above in that the presence of denticles in some mid-lateral teeth should not on its own be used to separate the two genera, and thus I regard  Carryodorisas a synonym of  Geitodoris.