36 



variable form and size, but in most cases they are about twice as long as broad 

 and sometimes much longer. No tubercles. The aperture which is provided with a 

 distinct but rather narrow oral ledge and a narrow peristoniial thickening presents 

 some variation in form and dimensions, but is generally half as long as broad, and 

 the two lateral margins are somewhat converging proximally. The convex oper- 

 culum shows a distinct flabelliform striation. — 



The Heterozooecia which are spread among the zooecia singly or more together 

 are about of the same length as the latter, and the beak-shaped more or less pro- 

 jecting distal end is as a rule much shorter than the concave suboral area. The 

 narrow triangular obliquely ascending aperture is provided with an almost fissure- 

 like opening bordered by two inwardly sloping lateral thickenings. In a single case 

 I have found a calcareous mandible (fig. 2). 



Ooecia have not been found. 



The Kenozooecia, which have a similar form and size as the zooecia are in 

 large numbers spread among the zooecia. 



The Closure lakes place by means of a concave lamina. 



The Regeneration, hi the fragments examined I have only seen the regeneration 

 ot a new heterozooecium from an old one (fig. 1). 



The Colonies. I have examined a few laminate fragments consisting of a num- 

 ber of layers, and in one of them the zooecia are as in the above fragments of Mel. 

 Filiozati arranged in groups around a number of ancestrulae. 



The basin of Paris (Danian), Fecamp (Middle Senonian). 



When I refer the present species and not Mel. Filiozati to Clausinniltelea tuber- 

 culata d'Orb. it is because it agrees better with the figure given by d'Orbigny, not 

 only in the form of the apertures but also in the large number of the kenozooecia. 

 For the rest d'Orbignv's description as also his figure bear witness to a very super- 

 ficial examination as the zooecia according to this author, quite in opposition to 

 what is really the case, are only represented by their apertures. Also the relation 

 between the apertures and the kenozooecia in the figure leaves no doubt, that the 

 latter is constructed and not made according to nature. 



Meliceritites pyrenaica d'Orbigny. 



Foricula pyrenaica d'Orbigny, Bryoz. Cret. p. (),')8, pi. 741, figs. 16 — 18. 

 (PI. VI, figs. 11-L'l.l 



The Zooecia which are never divided by marginal ridges are subject to a veiy 

 great variation both in respect to the form and size of the aperture and to the form 

 and relative extension of the suboral area which never presents distinct pores, but 

 always a small number of more or less developed pits. The apertuie which in the 

 best preserved zooecia shows a distinct or even well-developed oral ledge is in most 

 cases semi-elliptical or makes a larger part of an ellipse, but it may also be semi- 

 circular, (jvadrangularly rounded, and some times much broader than high (fig. 11). 



