ANTARCTIC BRYOZOA — ROGICK 311 



mandible is a truncated oval. It has a U or Y shaped reinforcement 

 labout the center. 



Orifice: The primary and secondary orifices of this variety are 

 similar in appearance to, but smaller than, those of the typical species. 

 Moreover, the peristomial notch does not taper so much to a wedge 

 |but is more open than in the typical form. 



The operculum is irregularly reinforced with chitin. A definite 

 chitinous band, Ike a thin wire, extends about tlu-ee-fourths of the 

 way around the operculum. At the sides are parenthesis-shaped 

 sclerites which curve slightly inward from this band. A broad sheet 

 of chitin begins to grow inward (i. e., across the operculum) from the 

 peripheral band. It grows faster from the sides until the thickened 

 strips meet in the opercular central area, in the oldest opercula (cf. 

 pi. 34,C-E). 



OvicELLs: No complete ovicells, only beginning ones, are on the 

 holotype. Tlu-ee fully developed, globose, but broken ovicells are 

 on a para type from Station 44. The ovicell frontal surface is missing 

 from these, however. 



, Distribution and ecology: The holotype (USNM 11318) is 

 from Station 226, the paratype from Station 44. Some of the holo- 

 type zoids have polypide remains in them. 



Affinities: This variety is very similar to the typical S. ornati- 

 pectoralis, differing only in its smaller, differently proportioned 

 avicularia, the broader peristomial notch, smaller size of both orifices, 

 and smaller zooecia, although the last is not an important character. 



Smittoidea reticulata (?) (Johnston) 



Plate 35 



Lepralia reticulata. Johnston, 1847, p. 317, pi. 55, fig. 10. — Busk, 1854, pi. 90, 



fig. 1 (not pi. 93, figs. 2-4 or pi. 102, fig. 1). 

 Smittoidea prolifica? Osburn, 1952, pi. 48, figs. 7, 8 (considered by Bassler, 1953, 



p. G209, to be a synonym for S. reticulata). 



The above is a partial synonymy only. 



Remarks: The identification of the Antarctic specimens of this 

 form is very uncertain for two reasons. First, there is not enough 



I whole material, ovicells, or completed peristome to make identifica- 

 tion absolutely certain. Second, Smittoidea reticulata is one of the 

 most scrambled species in the family because its original hazy de- 

 scription by MacGOlivray (1842, pp. 467-468) is not accompanied by 

 a figure. Johnston (1847) at least figures it diagrammatically, 



' without ovicells and with a hole for the avicularium. Busk (1854, 

 pi. 90, fig. 1, pi. 93, figs. 2-4, pi. 102, fig. 1), m his handsomely illus- 



I trated catalog, had five figures, presumably of L. reticulata, but un- 



