464 DISCOVERY REPORTS 



the type material of the species. The spine was described by Busk as "probably only a 

 modified or undeveloped connecting-tube", but it appears to be a true spine, and has 

 not the chamber and runner found at the point of origin of the connecting tubes or 

 rootlets. The species and the variety also resemble each other in the axillary rootlets 

 which issue frontally. There is, however, a distinct difference in the shape of the zooecia 

 which are more tapering in the variety, giving its branches a more sinuous outline. Busk 

 figured an ovicell of var. unicornis, but shows no sculpture, and no complete ovicell is 

 now to be found in his material of the variety. 



As suggested by Kluge, it seems more probable that the Antarctic form, called Bugula 

 reticulata by Waters (1904, p. 22), belonged to C. areolatus Kluge than to true C. reti- 

 culatus. C. reticulatus (Calvet) may also belong to C. areolatus, see pp. 455, 466. It is 

 certainly distinct from C. reticulatus (Busk). For a discussion of Bugula reticulata var. 

 spinosa Waters, see p. 441. 



19. Camptoplites lunatus Harmer. Fig. 53 A, B. 



Camptoplites lunatus Harmer, 1926, p. 452, pi. xxxiv, figs. 5-8. 



Station distribution. Not represented in the Discovery collections. 



Geographical distribution. South-west of Timor, 2050m. (Harmer); off Crozet Islands, 

 2928 m. (1940.7.8. 1). 



A colony of this species, found unnamed among material from Challenger St. 147 (Crozet 

 Islands), agrees very closely with Harmer's description. The lateral rootlets, which spring 

 from chambers without runners, form cross-connexions making the colony reticulate. 



The zooecia are rather long and slender. The expanded part bearing the opesia forms 

 about half their length and the narrow, tubular, proximal half is not conspicuous. The 

 zooecia have two rather stout spines. One is placed distally on the basal surface in the 

 mid-line of the operculum which is oblique in non-fertile zooecia, matching the 

 obliquity of the distal end of the zooecium. The other spine is on the outer distal corner, 

 directed frontally. Spines in these positions are shown in Harmer's figures. The forward 

 direction of the outer distal corner and its spine is evidently natural and is the cause of 

 the tendency to unnatural inward folding of the corner noticed by Harmer. The spines 

 have a flexible zone at their base. As noted by Harmer the distal spine may be replaced 

 by a rootlet-chamber. 



Very large, delicately calcified ovicells are present, and are the largest known in 

 Camptoplites (cf. Fig. 53 A, B with Figs. 48 A-C, 49 A-C, 50 B, C, 51 C, 52 D, 

 53 C, D, 54 B, D, all drawn to the same scale). The entooecium bears radial sculpture 

 with fine transverse striations and has an out-turned lip. The greater part of the basal 

 surface of the ovicells is free from the distal zooecium and is fluted like the frontal 

 surface. The outer distal spine is present on fertile zooecia. The basal spine may also be 

 present and underlies the ovicell. 



The thin axillary rootlets of C. lunatus, adhering to the basal surface of the branch, 

 are in striking contrast to the stout, free axillary rootlets of other species of Camptoplites. 



The Challenger specimen was only discovered after the portion of the type-specimen 

 deposited in the British Museum had been despatched to a place of safety, and the main 



