PENNATULIDA. 



these specimens 21 are quite small, provided only with the primar)- polyp and a few zooids; the number 

 of these zooids is given in the table below. None of the zooids in these specimens appears as a real 

 terminal zooid; I doubt therefore — as already hinted above — whether a real terminal zooid corre- 

 sponding to that of Pcnnatula and Renilla, is on the whole to be found in the genus Kophobelevmon. 

 The zooids do not occur quite symmetricall}-, nor always in two regular rows. In one of the speci- 

 mens (Nr. 21 from St. 40) sexual organs seem to occur in the primary polyp, which, however, is at 

 variance with the observations of Grieg {1893, p. 18). 



The specimen from St 10 is 40™" long, the rhachis in its broadest part ca. 4™'" broad; the 

 peduncle is remarkably short onl\- i^™™ long, ca. 2""" broad, so that the whole form is unusualh' 

 clumsy. All the polyps are retracted; only five of them, among which is the primar\' one, are full\- 

 developed, but more are beginning as buds; the zooids are numerous, and are not restricted to the 

 dorsal side of the colony. 



It was observed above that Giuineria horcalis Kor. & Dan. must also be referred to Kophohel. 

 sfelliferum. These authors have given this name to a sea-pen in which the\' thought they had a 

 very peculiar form approaching in some features to the Gorgonids; the>- say of it that we are able 

 with considerable certainty to satisfy ourselves that this sea-pen can not be assigned to any of the 

 known genera:, but that it is, however, to be referred to the family of the Protoptiles. The name, 

 however, ought to disappear, and the comments on the supposed peculiarities, to be consigned to 

 oblivion; the question is onl\- of a damaged fragment of Koph. stellifernui. < Giinneria borcalis was 

 establi.shed on one single specimen figured in Norw. North-Atlantic Exp. Penn. PI. IV. fig. 8; I have 

 had this specimen for examination, and it was easy to determine that it is the lower end of a Kopho- 

 belemnon the greater part of whose rhachis has been scraped awa\- from the calcareous axis, whilst 

 the rest has been much displaced downward towards the peduncle, the soft tissues of which have also 

 been compressed. Tlie effect of this compression, however, is not seen in the figure, although it 

 is very conspicuous, and especially so on the opposite side of the one given in the figure; the strong 

 incrustation with spicules pointed out by the authors, is partly owing to this compression. As correctly 

 stated in the description, little more than young polyps and buds of these are preserved; at the top, 

 however, a few developed polyps are present, more or less retracted; two are seen in the figure (a,b). 



The )oung polyps look the same as elsewhere in Kophobeletmw//\ they only differ from the 

 zooids accordingh- in Ijeing larger and in luuing rudiments of tentacles (the authors have correct!)- 

 seen '-rudimentary tentacles); as aKva\s in this region, real zooids are found between them and are 

 .seen quite distinctl\- in the figure (in the description, on the other hand, the authors pronounce the 

 specimen destitute of zooids, although they think that the part of the rhachis lacking has been 



M The lower end broken. 



