REPORT ON THE POLYZOA. 
45 
On these grounds there does not appear to be any sufficient reason to regard 
Kinetoskias smittii and Kinetoskias cyaihus as specifically the same. 
(2) Kinetoskias pocillum, Busk (PL VIII. fig. 2). 
Kinetoskias pocillum, Bk., Quart. Journ. Micr. Soc., vol. xxi., N. S., p. 7, pi. i. figs. 2, 5, 1881. 
Character. — Zoarium like that of Kinetoskias cyathus, but much smaller. Zocecia 
rather contracted at the bottom, rounded above, and without any angular process. 
Avicularium (fig. 2d) affixed to the outer border about the middle. Posteriorly 
convex (fig. 2b), quite smooth, outline irregularly oblong, the outer border being 
sharp and the inner rounded and gibbous. Ooecia smaller than in Kinetoskias cyaihus, 
cucullate, the opening looking obliquely outwards and downwards. Avicularia larger 
and proportionately wider than in Kinetoskias cyathus. 
Habitat. — Station 122, lat. 9° 5' to 10' S., long. 34° 49' to 53' W., 32 to 400 fathoms. 
Station 299, lat. 33° 31' S., long. 74° 43' W., 2160 fathoms; blue mud. 
As compared with the second species, — Kinetoskias arborescens, — described by Koren 
and Daniellsen, 1 pretty nearly the same amount of difference exists between that form 
and Kinetoskias jpocillum, as between Kinetoskias smittii and Kinetoskias cyathus. 
At the same time there are one or two points which induce some hesitation in positively 
asserting that the second Challenger form and Kinetoskias arborescens are not the same. 
The chief points of difference would appear to be : — 1st, The position of the avicularium, 
which in Kinetoskias arborescens is placed at the upper and outer angle, whilst in 
Kinetoskias jpocillum it is invariably seated at the middle (or a little below it) of the 
outer border. 2nd, In Kinetoskias arborescens the dorsal surface is strongly striated 
transversely, the ridges being elevated and oblique from below upwards and inwards, &c., 
whilst in Kinetoskias pocillum the dorsal surface is perfectly even and polished. 
With respect to the Bugula umbella of Prof. Smitt, as from his admirable description 
and excellent figures there can, I think, be no doubt that it is the same as Kinetoskias 
arborescens, Koren and Daniellsen, what has been said with regard to a comparison 
between that form and either of those in the Challenger collection, will equally apply to 
Prof. Smitt’s. His specimen, however, seems to have been imperfect, as it has no 
peduncle, and appears to be turned inside out, and at all events is represented as it would 
seem the wrong way up in the figure. 2 
Prof. Smitt’s description of the mode of commencement of the zooecial portion 3 
corresponds exactly with what I have been able to make out in Kinetoskias cyathus , 
as does also his admirable account of the mode of formation, and true nature of the 
web-like expansion connecting the zooecial branches at the bottom of the cup. 
1 Loc. cit., pi. xii. figs. 9-14, and Forhandl. Vidensk. Selsk, Christiania, 1867, p. 27. 
2 Loc. cit., pi. xix. fig. 30. 3 Ibid., fig. 31. 
