Durrpen—Wotes on the Hydroida and Polyzoa. bol 
within the expansion of the polypary to the same extent as in 
B. ramosa, and the gonophores are distributed over the ramules, 
as in Allman’s well-known figure in the Gymnoblastic Hydroids. 
It differs from Allman’s description in having the outer surface of 
the polypary covered with very fine foreign particles, giving it the 
appearance of being sanded over. Considering that the locality 
agrees approximately with that from which Professor Allman 
obtained his specimens, I have less hesitation in regarding these 
forms as the same. /P. fruticosa was first collected from Kenmare 
River, Co. Kerry, while the specimens I have under consideration 
came from Bantry Bay. They consist of numerous small por- 
tions obtained growing on the limbs of a Stenorhynchus, which 
must have torn them from the parent colony to decorate itself 
with. On some of the specimens was one of the long fusiform 
parasite capsules, which serve as nests for larval Pycnogonida. I 
have also found these capsules, of somewhat similar shape, on 
B. ramosa, so that they cannot be regarded as characteristic of 
one species. 
Campanulina turrita, Hincks. 
(Pl. XIV., figs. 5 and 6.) 
Stem distinctly ringed throughout, either short and simple, or 
crowdedly branched, and somewhat zigzag in shape; at each bend 
a branch given off, which generally branches immediately. Hydro- 
thece with almost parallel sides in the middle, but narrowing slowly 
towards the base, and with an operculum composed of short, con- 
vergent segments. Polypites with about 18 tentacles. Gronothece 
broad, and sub-truncate above, tapering downwards, shortly stalked, 
and borne on the stem. Gonozooid closely resembling that of C. 
acununata. 
This species was first described by Mr. Hincks (“ Brit. Hyd. 
Zooph.,” page 190; pl. xxxvi., fig. 2) from drawings supplied 
him by Professor Wyville Thomson. Having since supplied 
Mr. Hincks with specimens collected from different parts of the 
Trish coast, he draws attention in a letter to me to the fact that 
Thomson’s figure, and consequently the description based upon it, 
is erroneous in the method of branching. It is represented as if 
the ramules were given off in groups of two or three at each bend 
2B2 
