18 0. NORDGAARD. [2nd arc. exp. fram 



right or the left; and the mandible is very long and pointed. The oper- 

 culum is of the same shape as in the preceding species, but the oper- 

 cular ribs do not appear to be so marked as in that species. As a rule 

 there are only two oral spines, but occasionally I have also seen three 

 such spines. 



31. Schizoporella levinseni, Nordgaard. 



1905. Schisoporella levinseni, Nordgaard, Hydr. Biol. Inv. Noi'w. Fjords, p. 16G 

 PI. 5, figs. 3 & 4. 



August, 1900, the north side of North Devon, incrusting stones. 



At the above-named place, I took a little reddish incrustation with 

 a few zooecia, which I I'eterred, with some hesitation, to levinseni. The 

 paucity of material prevented an altogether exact investigation. The 

 lower margin of the oral aperture was cut right off by a. small median 

 sinus. There were neither avicularia nor ooecia. The perforation upon 

 the frontal wall of the zocecia was like that in the specimens from the 

 north of Norway, and the shape of the zooecia varied, there being both 

 rounded oval, and very angular zooecia. 



32. Schizoporella coadylata,, Nordgaard, n. sp. 



PI. II, figs. 16-18. 



July, 1900, the winter haven, incrusting stones. 



I conclude that this Schizoporella must be a new species, and will 

 therefore state its most important characteristics. The limits of the 

 zooecia are marked by distinct lines or sutures; and these are also found 

 to some extent on the ooecia (fig. 16). The frontal wall of the zooecia 

 has few perforations, which at any rate in the young zooecia, are not 

 arranged like a row of marginal pores. Both zooecia and ooecia are 

 punctured, the ooecia having no perforations. Avicularia could not be 

 discovered. On the lower margin of the oral aperture, there is a broad 

 sinus, and the operculum has a corresponding lobe (fig. 17). The con- 

 dyles, which serve as a support to the operculum, were as a rule very 

 marked. Fig. 18 shows the interzooecial connection in a young colony. 

 I will assume that S. condylata is a different species to those previ- 

 ously described by me, levinseni and hexagona (Hydr. Biol. Inv. Norw. 

 Fj., p. 166). Condylata exhibits a conspicuous difference from levinseni, 

 but it is a more difficult matter to separale it from hexagona. Of the 

 latter too, I have so little, that a detailed comparison cannot be 

 made. They seem, however, to be two different species, the smaller 



