1898-1902. No. 8.] BRYOZOA. 29 



they, ought properly speaking to be regarded as separate species. I 

 will even go so far as to say that two of them must be referred to 

 another genus. 



Canon Norman, in „A Month on the Trondhjem Fjord" (Ann. Mag. 

 Nat. Hist., ser. 6, vol. 13, p. 128), has suggested that Smitt's forms, 

 minuscula and majuscula, should be united unner the name of Smittia 

 arctica; and several later writers have adopted this arrangement. While 

 working up the material from the north of Norway, I came upon 

 Smitt's form majuscula, and I assumed that it must be regarded as 

 an independent species. Unfortunately I overlooked the fact that 

 Norman regarded majuscula as the type of his species, while minus- 

 cula was looked upon as a variety of it. After having now had an 

 opportunity of seeing a typical minuscula, I still maintain that Norman's 

 S. arctica ought to be divided ; and I now suggest that Smitt's Esclia- 

 rella poriferahe diveded in the following manner: 



1. ScMzoporella porifera. Smitt. 



Escharella porifera, f. typica, Smitt, Ofv. Kgl. Vet. Akad. Foi-h., 

 1867, Appendix, pp. 9 & 70, pi. 24, figs. 30—32. 



2. Smittina minuscula, Smitt. 



Escharella porifera f. minuscula, Smitt, 1. c. p. 9, pi. 24, figs. 33—35. 



3. Smittina arctica, Norman. 



Escharella porifera, f. majuscula, Smitt, 1. c. p. 9, pi. 24, figs. 36—38. 



Smittia arctica, Norman, A Month on the Trondhjem Fjord. Ann. 

 Mag. Nat. Hist,, ser. 6, vol. 13, p. 128. 



4. ScMzoporella reticulata- punctata, Hincks. 

 Escharella porifera, f. edentata, Smitt, 1. c. p. 9, pi. 24, fig. 39* 



1877. Lepralia reticulato-punctata, Hincks. 



Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 4, vol. 19, p. 103, pi. 10, figs. 3 & 4. 



5. Smittina cancellata, Smitt. 

 L. c. p. 9, pi. 24, figs. 40, 41. 



The last-named I have not seen. 



The forms porifera and reticulato-punctata are not typical species 

 of the genus ScMzoporella ; but for the time being 1 know of no better 

 place to put them in. 



