136 SIDNEY F. HAEMER. 



denticulata and C. cribraria. It differs, according to Sars' 

 description, from my own specimens in the following respects. 



Tiie zocecia are fused with one another along their whole length, so 

 that the upper part, with the aperture, is not free. The outer and 

 upper angle of the young zocecia may bear a small knob (never observed 

 in C. ramosa). The joints are usually uncoloured, but sometimes 

 brown-grey intheolder branches (usually yellowin C. ramosa). The 

 ovicells are always in the axils of the branches, and they are not 

 described as having an aperture (which can hardly be overlooked in 

 C. ramosa). 



On the whole, Sars' description suggests a form like C. denticu- 

 lata or C. elongata, M.-Edw. It is, perhaps, the form figured by 

 Smitt (9) in pl.xvi, fig. 20, The " basis rami" in this figure is unlike 

 anything I have ever seen in C. denticulata, although resembling 

 that of C. ramosa. 

 C. eburnea (pars). — 

 (2) Couch.— P. 99. 



Some of the larger specimens mentioned by Couch probably belonged 

 to this species : the ovicells are " somewhat urn-shaped with narrow 

 tubular necks, which are not placed in the centre." This description 

 probably refers to C. ramosa, although the "young specimens" in 

 which the branches " all arch inwards " doubtless belonged to C. 

 eburnea. The magnified figure (pi. xviii, fig. 2), which is not good, 

 may be identified as C. aculeata by the presence of a spine; and 

 the figure next to it (natural size) is probably either that species or 

 C. ramosa. 

 P C, eburnea (pars). — 



(9) Smitt.— PL xvi, fig. 9, and p. 135 (fig. G). (These figs, may refer 

 to C. aculeata.) 

 ? C. eburnea, var. — 



(6) Busk.— PI. v, figs. 5—10. 

 ? C. denticulata (pars). — 

 (6) Busk.— PI. ii, figs. 3, 4. 



(9) Smitt. — ' Table of Formulae,' Nos. 14 — 17, and probably some of 

 the earlier numbers (c. g. 12 and 13), which are said to belong 

 either to C. eburnea or to be transitional from this form lo 

 C. denticulata. It is hardly possible that a form with so many 

 branches arising from the same internode as in No. 17, for in- 

 stance, was really C. denticulata, 

 (23) Smitt. — "Floridan Bryozoa," Part 1, 'Kougl. Svcuska Vet.-Akad. 

 Handl.,' B. x. No. 11, 1S72, pi. i, figs. 1-5. 

 I do not feel certain that the form described in (23) is really iden- 

 tical with C. ramosa, although it can hardly be regarded as C, 



