1*59 



lender the n.anie Eschara propinqiin. Smitt lias entered two 

 forms whicli undoubtedly are separate species. In the explanation 

 (if the illustrations it is mentioned that tius. 131 — 134 represent 

 zooei'ia of specimens found in Finmark on Flio^tra. These belontf 

 to the species which Hixcks later described as Porella probosriili'H. 

 hi the latter species, the zooecium is unpcrforated, while it has a 

 characteristic perforation (PI. l\'. tii;. "Jo bl in projunqud. 



Tn ]injp'ui(jnii tiie peristome is very elevated on the sides of 

 the oral aperture, and the operculum has a characteristic shape 

 (■JO b). Another peculiarity of propiiujiio is the occurrence of small 

 perforations on the backside of the zoarium (tiir. 191. 



The lateral wall of the zooecium has two multipored rosette- 

 plates. 



Porella prohoscidea. Htncks. 



PI. IV, fios. 8—11. 



Eschara propinqiia. Smitt (part), ()fvers. Kg], ^'et. A kad. FOrh. 



1867 (Bihang), p. 22, pi. 26, flg-s. 130—134. 

 Porella prohoscidca, Hixcks, The Polyzoa of the St. Lawrence. 

 Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 6, vol 1, p. 223, pi. 14, 

 tig. 4. 

 Porella proboscklea. Nokdgaard, Syst. forteg. marine polyzoa. Berg. 



Mus. Aarb. 1894—95, p. 25, pi. 1, fig. 4. 

 Porella slenei. var. prohoseidea. Waters. F. .T. B., p. 79, pi. 11, 

 figs. 17, 18. 

 Hammerfest (1894); The North Cape (1894); Nordkyn (1894); 

 Mehavn (1894). 



The avicularian rostrum is much larger in this species than in 

 the foregoing one. (Cfr. figs. 8 and 18). 



The Zooecium is poreless, and so is the basal wall of the 

 zooecium. 



The opercula are also different with regard to shape. Probos- 

 eidea is so different from slrnei that the former can scarcely he 

 considered to be a variety of the latter. 



Pulmkrlliirid ukenel var. fridens. Busk. 



PI. IV, fio. 12. 



Mo.skenstrominen, 90 m. ; Malangen, 100 — 200 m.; The Pors- 

 anger Fiord, 200 m. 



With regard to this variety. I beg to refer to my paper: — 

 Die Bryozoen des westliehen Noi-wegens. Meeresfauna von Bergen, 

 p. 89. 



The operculum is, however, not very carefully illusti-ated there 

 (pi. I. fig. 14), for which reason I give another illustration here 

 (fig. 121. 



Palmirellarin slrnei var. bicornu, Busk. 



PI. IV. fi-. l.s. 



Lepralia bicornis, Busk, A Mon. of the foss. Pol. of the Crag, 



p. 47, pi. 8, figs. 6, 7. 



The Jøkel Fiord III, 100 m. 



I have also taken this variety in the Troiidhjem Fiord. 



Escharopsis (Escharoides) mrsi. S.mitt. 



Tromsø Sound, 70 m. 



From Spakre Schneider, I got a colony which was 17..5 cm. 

 in length and 8 cm. in width. 



The cavity of the colony served as a hidingplace for Ophio- 

 pholis aculeata, CribreUa etc. The colony itself was covered with 

 Thinaria thiiia and other hvdroids. 



.Muskciisl 



Kv;f 



/'.'■•'(■harops-is rosacea, liusK. 



PI. m, Hg. 17. 

 I. 00 ui.: Digermulen, loo l.')U ni.; .Malan-cii, 

 aiiL'-cn II. 1(0 III.: HrcisinKl. loo in. 



/'sfinloflii.stra -soUda, Stimpson.') 

 Kvænangen 11, 90 m. ; The Porsanger Fiord. 70 m. 



Monojiorrlla sjiimiltfcra, Hincks.-) 



PI. IV, li^^s. u, m. 



Forinn cilinta, forma dura, S.mitt, (Jfvers. af Ki:l. \'et. Akad. Fiiili. 



1867 (Bihang) pp. 6, 61, pi. 24, ti-. 17. 

 Discopont cntratii. Smitt, Ofvers. af Kgl. Vet. .Akad. FOrli. 1871. 

 p. 1127, pi. 21, figs. 20—23. 



In my list of the Norwegian Bryozoa (Bergens Mus. Aarb. 

 1894 — 95). I have entered this species as Mucronella cruenta. 

 Norm AX, as I, with Smitt took Norman's Lepralia cruenta to be 

 the same as Discopora cruenta. Smitt. I had, however, noticed 

 at that time that there was a resemblance between Discopora cru- 

 enm. Smitt and Mucronella spinHlifera, Hincks. The identity of 

 these two forms has later been confirmed by Hincks and Norman. 

 It must, however, be observed that Smitt both mentions and illu- 

 .strates a single row of marginal pores on the zooecia, while 

 Hincks'') does not even hint at their presence. In other respects 

 the resemblance is striking, and the only po.ssible explanation is 

 that Hincks has overlooked the marginal pores. On PI. TV, fig. 

 15 the arrangement of the marginal pore-chambers will be seen.'*) 



The species is known from St. Lawrence, Greenland, Spitzbergeu 

 and King Charles' Land.') I found it to be quite common on stones 

 at Hammerfest in ls94. 



EscharcUa immersa. Flemin(; = Mucronella (Lepralia) peachi, 



.lOHNSTON.") 

 PI. IV. t\'i. -11. 



Moskeastrommen II, 15o m.: Malangen, 100 — 200 m. (var. 



oclodeniala). 



Efclian-lla renfricosa, Hassall. 

 PI. IV, Hg-. 28. 



Moskenstrommen II, 150 in.: SvoIv;er (1894), on coal; The 

 Ostnes Fiord, 50 — 70 m., on stone and shells, Hammerfest (1894) 

 on stones. 



Escliarelln hupicafa. Noh.m.vn. 



PI. IV. tiix. 29. 



Moskenstrommen II. 15o in.; The Ostnes Fiord 50 — 70 m., on 

 stone; Malangen, 100— 2oo m., on stone, Hammerfest (1894). 



LWIiarella ab//ssicola. Nou.m.vn. 



Pl. IV, fi- .■ill 



The Tys Fiord I, 500 in., on Loplwliclia prolifera; Kv;pnangen 

 II, 90 in., on .shells. 



121) 



1) Refer to Normax 



-) Cf. Norman (1. c. p. 115). 



^) The Polyzoa of St. Lawrence. Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 

 p. 4:31. pl. 21, fig. 3. 



■•) Cfr. Levinsen, Studies on Brvozoa, Vid. Med Nat. Hist. Foren 

 hagen, 1902, (Sep.), p. 10. 



^) Cfi-. BiDENKAP. „Die Bryozoen". Fauna Arctica, B. I, Lief. : 



") Cfr. Norman (I. c. p. 118). 



22 



in Copen- 



