235 



The specimens agree with the general descnption given by 

 Kolliker in most respects, but there are a few minor differences 

 which are worthy of record. 



KolUker remarks that very often the lowest parts of two or 

 three or more polyps of a row are united so as to produce the 

 a]jpearance of very small pinnules, but in no place are all the 

 polyps of one row united in such a manner. This fusion of the 

 bases of the autozooids is much more pronounced in the Cape 

 specimens. Most of the autozooids of a row are fused at their 

 bases for a distance of 3-5 mm. in the middle rows, but there are 

 usually one or two gaps irregular in position in each row where 

 the fusion of the bases is reduced to a mere trace. In the lower 

 rows the fusion of the bases is scarcely noticeable. (Fig. 14.) 



The siphonozooids are, as in Kolhker's specimens, very 

 numerous, but, unlike Kolliker's specimens, they exhibit an al- 

 most contmuous dorsal* series unuiterrupted at the bases of the 

 rows of autozooids. I have also found no siphonozooids between 

 the individuals of the rows of autozooids. 



I have searched for the calcareous corpuscles found in the 

 muscular layers at the base of the stalk without success. I can- 

 not find any calcareous corpuscles in any part of the colony. 

 This may be an oversight on my part, but it is practically im- 

 possible in seapens of this gigantic size to search all parts of the 

 fleshy substance with equal care. 



* The dorsal side of this pciinatuUd was called '-ventral " by Kolliker. For a 

 full discussion of this point, the reader is referred to the important memoir by 

 H. F. E. Jungersen on the •'Pennatulida of the Danish liiyolf Expedition, 1904," 

 a copy of which was kindly sent to mc by the author, and came to liand as I was 

 passing the proofs of this paper f(^r llie press.— S. J. M. 



