the Trondhjem Fiord. 451 
3. Scrupocellaria intermedia, sp.n. (Pl. XLX. figs. 9, 10.) 
Rédberg, on the precipices. 
I cannot assign this form satisfactorily to any known 
species. It comes nearest to S. scrupea, a southern form not 
yet known north of the south of England. With that species 
it agrees in the form of the fornix, of the lateral avicularia, 
and of the vibracular cells, which latter are present on every 
zocecium, and in the absence of an avicularium on the front of 
the cell. It differs in its more slender habit and more elon- 
gated cells (in S. scrupea the mouth-openings overlap each 
other, here they are quite distinct), and in the ocecium, which 
in S. scrupea is wider than high and very convex, here is 
somewhat loop-formed, being narrower at the mouth than 
a little above it, much longer than wide, and flattened cen- 
trally ; there are four spines at the summit of the cell. In 
habit this species approaches more nearly to S. scruposa, 
from which it is distinguished by the presence of a fornix. 
From the northern S. scabra it differs in the absence of an 
avicularium on the front of the zocecium and the entirely 
different form of the vibracular cell *. 
4, Caberea Ellisii, Fleming. 
Rédberg and Trondhjem, frequent. 
5. Bicellaria Alderi, Busk,= B. unispina, M. Sars. 
Trondhjem, 150 fath.; Rodberg. 
6. Flustra Barleei, Busk. 
Not uncommon on the precipices. Here, and in all other 
West-Norway fiords where I have taken the species, the 
habit of the species is different from that of specimens from 
the sea round Shetland. for the form of the latter see 
Hincks, pl. v. fig. 6, which was drawn by Mr. Alder from a 
specimen in my collection. In Norway, on the other hand, 
the zoarium generally assumes the form of long narrow strips. 
Flustra Barleet is common in the West-Norway fiords. It 
* I take this opportunity of dissenting from Mr. Hincks’s view that 
my S. znermis is the same as the Miocene fossil S. edliptica, Reuss ; one 
of that author’s figures shows three spines on the front margin of the 
cells, and the dorsal view looks quite different, representing the zocecia as 
very tumid in that part. Many of Reuss’s species described in this and 
other papers may prove to be recent; but it is difficult, except in the 
case of very marked forms, to judge, without comparison of specimens, of 
the identity of fossil with recent species, especially in such a genus as 
Scrupocellaria, where most of the organs in a fossil are in an imperfect 
state. 
34* 
