'258 Rev. T. Hincks's Catalogue of Zoophytes 



somewhat attenuated below. The pinnse have two joints just 

 above the junction with the stem, the upper one of which is 

 oblique; and two are always present between the cells. In echinu- 

 lata there is (normally) only one, so that the cells are compara- 

 tively crowded. 



The cells of P. similis are large, curving gracefully outwards 

 towards the rim, with a wide circular opening, and present a 

 decided contrast to the small basin-shaped cell of the allied 

 species. Below each cell there is a single tubule, as in P. echi- 

 nulata, but of larger size. In the latter species there is an 

 additional tubule behind and above the cell. The gonothecse are 

 elongate, tapering towards the base, smooth, and divided into 

 six or seven lobes ; they are produced in great numbers both 

 on the creeping fibre and on the stems. Several sporosacs are, 

 I believe, present in each capsule. 



In size P. similis much exceeds its congener, but is inferior to 

 it in delicacy and grace. 



10. P. Catharina, Johnston. 



On Pinna from 60 fathoms, Cornwall. 



[Mr. Bailee has supplied me with very fine specimens dredged 

 off the Arran Islands, on the west coast of Ireland, where the 

 species seems to abound.]. 



11. P. obliqua, Saunders. 

 Syn. haomedea obliqua, Johnston. 

 At Sidmouth, on Rhytiphlcea (Miss Cutler). 

 I follow Mr. Alder's suggestion (in lit.) in referring this spe- 

 cies to the present genus. There can be no doubt as to its true 

 position. The mode in which the cells are placed, the jointing 

 of the stem, and the presence of tubules, constitute a group of 

 characters which connect it with the setacea section of Plumu- 

 laria. 



12. P. frutescens, Ellis & Solander. 



Cornwall, from deep water. 

 [Redcar and Filey, Yorkshire.] 



Fam. Campanulariadse, Johnst. 

 1. Laomedea, Lamx.* 

 1. L. dichotoma, Linn. 

 Common : generally parasitical on other zoophytes. 



* Lamouroux's haomedea is merely retained for the sake of convenience. 

 There is no real generic distinction between it and Campanularia. In this 

 view I am supported by M. Sars, who says, in his account of haomedea 

 gracilis, "These two genera (haomedea and Campanularia) are hardly 



