HYDR01DA II 



49 



all, as long as we bear in mind that the two statements refer to the gonotheca as viewed in the one 

 case from the flat, in the other from the side. Consequently, all things considered, I regard the col- 

 onies in question as representatives of Halecium tenellum. 



Jaderholm (1909 p. 55) notes Halecium Schncideri (Bonnevie) (1898 p. 10) as synonymous with 

 Halecium tenellum; this, however, requires further justification. The shape of the colony, and the 

 lively formation of pseudohydrocauli in Halecium Sclmeideri, agree rather with Halecium miuutum, 

 but the identity of the species is altogether doubtful, from the data we possess. Should the female 

 gonothecae prove to correspond with Schneider's Halecium nanum (1898 p. 481) then we have here 

 a species entirely distinct from Halecium tenellum and Halecium minutum. Similarly, it may be doubtful 



600 m. ,(ooom. 



Fig. XXI. Finds of Halecium tenellum in the Northern Atlantic. 



2000m. 



whether the species noted by me (1913 p. 17) as Halecium tenellum, from the Adriatic, really belongs 

 here; the method of growth of the colony, and its dimensions, differ to such a degree from what is 

 found in northern specimens of Halecium tenellum, that we must await demonstration of the gonothecse 

 in the Adriatic form before we can determine with certainty whether it belongs to this species. 



The colonies agree on the other hand very well with the Halecium textum described by 

 Kramp (1911 p. 368); the marked curvature of the hydrotheca margin in this species is not more 

 pronounced than is frequently met with in Halecium tenellum; here, however, we must also await the 

 finding of gonangia. It would also seem likely, as Kramp (1914 p. 1003) points out, that the Hale- 

 cium crinis described by Stechow (1913 p. 79) belongs under Halecium tenellum; S tec how's inter- 

 pretation of the manner of ramification in the colony is based upon an entirely erroneous appreciation 



The [ngolt-Expedilion. V. 7. 7 



