the Trondhjem Fiord, 4A7 



which marks its separation from the mouth-margin; the 

 illusion is heightened by the fact that the anterior edge of the 

 operculum is projected at a right angle across the inoutli, 

 leaving in front an opening exactly semicircular in form. 

 The whole cell thus mimics the appearance of a Lepralian. 

 Two avicularia on each cell — one central, raised, situated a 

 little behind the aperture ; the other lateral, in the usual 

 position, very small, the outer margin of the cell embracing 

 it from below without any angularity. The ocecium is rather 

 longer than wide, not globose, but depressed slightly above, 

 inclining inwards. 



But a most marked peculiarity of this Menipea is seen at 

 the back of the zoarium, which is overlaid throughout from 

 the base to the most recently developed cells by chitinous 

 tubes ; these tubes, where not so numerous, generally wind 

 in and out among the cells, but on the lower part, where they 

 are more numerous, they completely cover the whole back ; 

 moreover, one of these tubes generally (if not always) passes 

 round the base of each bifurcation (see Quart. Journ. tig. 6, and 

 here, PI. XIX. tig. 1, c), as though to give strength to that part ; 

 sometimes also one of the tubes runs along the edge of each 

 side of the zoarium, so that, when viewed from above, there 

 is seen a transparent margin (PI. XIX. fig. 1, h) extended 

 outside the cells. Height of my tallest specimen 32 millim. 

 (not quite 1^ inch). 



Rodberg, Trondhjem Fiord, 150 fath. ; also Kors Fiord, 

 180 fath. ; Hardanger Fiord, 150-180 fath. ; Floro, 35 fath. ; 

 and Bog Fiord, East Fininark, 150 fath. 



Specimens from all these localities agree in every particular. 

 They are at once distinguished from all other species of the 

 genus by the peculiar dorsal overlying of chitinous tubes and 

 the large close-fitting cap-formed fornix, as well as by the 

 presence of the central and the small size of the lateral 

 avicularia. 



The description and figure here of this s])ecies are so 

 different from those previously given that some explanation 

 is necessary. Alder's figure illustrating my paper (pi. v. 

 fig. 8) and Ilincks's figure (pi. ix. fig. 1) were both taken from 

 the same specimen ; the former incorrectly thought that the 

 broken remains on the upper ooecium-bearing cell repre- 

 sented a branched fornix. This error I corrected in my 

 descri])tion, and Ilincks drew it as entire, adding two similar 

 f'ornices to two other cells where they were not actually 

 present in the specimen. I mention this trifle because 

 the curious circumstance is this, that all the time there 

 was a perfect fornix on the lowest zocecium of the right-hand 



