124 FLUSTRID.E. 



SEMIPLUSTRA CARBASEA, D'Orb. Pal. Fran. Terr. Oret. v. 32(5. 

 FLUSTRA PAFYREA, Smitt, Krit. Fort., CEfv. &c. 1807, 359 and 380, pi. xx. 

 figs. 9-11 (not Eschar a papyrea, Pallas)*. 



Zoarium frondose, attached by a small disk, narrowed 

 below, with a thickened margin towards the base, ex- 

 panding upwards, deeply divided into segments, which 

 again subdivide, and terminate in somewhat broad and 

 rounded lobes ; of a yellowish brown colour, and thin, 

 delicate, papyraceous texture. Zooecia on one side 

 only, large, often much elongated, arched above, con- 

 tracted below, and truncate at the bottom (linguiform) . 

 Avicularia none. Ooecia none. 



Polypide with about 22 tentacles. 



Height 2-4 inches. 



HABITAT. On stone and shell from rather deep water. 



LOCALITIES. Shetland, fishing - boats, Middle Haaf 

 (A. M. N.) : Peterhead, rare (C. W. P.) : Aberdeen 

 (Skene) : St. Andrews, after storms and from the fishing- 

 nets, not abundant (Dr. M'Intosh) : Leith (Dr. Cold- 

 stream) : oyster-beds, Firth of Forth (Grant) : Berwick 

 (Johnst.) : Newhaven, fishermen's nets (Dr. Landsb.) : 



* Kirchenpauer, in his Report on the North-Sea Polyzoa obtained 

 during the voyage of the 'Pommerania' (1875), proposes to separate the 

 Eschara papyrea, Pallas (Flustra papyracea, Linn.), from the Flustra 

 carbasea of Ellis and Solander, on the ground (chiefly) that the cells of the 

 former are described as " rhombic " whilst those of the latter are " lingui- 

 form" He regards Pallas's species as a Mediterranean form, distinct from 

 our British species, which is undoubtedly the Flustra carbasea of Solander. 

 lam inclined to believe that this view is correct. Pallas is singularly accu- 

 rate in his descriptions, and would have been little likely to characterize 

 the strongly marked cells of F. carbasea as rhombic, a term which is in no 

 sense applicable to them. They are, as Linnaeus describes them, " supra 

 ovata, medio angustatce, infra truncate." Pallas also makes no mention 

 in liis description, as Kirchenpauer has remarked, of the thickened margin 

 of the zoarium towards the base, which is so peculiar and striking a feature 

 of the latter form, an omission which we should not have expected from 

 the author of the ' Elenchus.' 



It must be admitted, at the same time, that in most respects his descrip- 

 tion agrees with the present species. Linnaeus recognized the two forms as 



