NO. 1 OSBURN : EASTERN PACIFIC BRYOZOA CHEILOSTOMATA 49 



ways also), triangular at its base and much narrowed beyond, never 

 longer than the breadth of the opesia and not winged ; the mandible is 

 attached by prominent hinge teeth. 



There is no external indication of ovicells except a slight elevation 

 and thickening of the distal rim. The dietellae are large and open widely. 



Spines are not known in the other species which have been assigned 

 to this genus, but the nature of the avicularium and the endozooecial 

 ovicells seem to place the present species in Cranosina without question. 

 It resembles C. coronata (Hincks) in general appearance, but in coronata 

 the mandible is very elongate (nearly as long as the zooecia) and winged, 

 and there are no spines. It also resembles Copidozoum transversum Silen 

 ( 1941 :41 ) , which may have to be placed in Cranosina, but it is evidently 

 a different species. 



Type, AH F no. 16. 



Type locality, Hancock Station 431-35, off Octavia Rocks, Colombia, 

 6°47'20"N, 77°4r40"W, at 45 fms, several colonies on pebbles. 



Genus ELLISINA Norman, 1903 



Ellisina Norman, 1903 : 596. 

 Ellisinidra Canu and Bassler, 1933 :18. 

 Ellisina, Hastings, 1945:87. 



Genotype, Membranipora levata Hincks, 1882:249. "Zooecia mem- 

 braniporine, ovicells endozooecial and closed by the zooecial operculum, 

 avicularia vicarious and pointed, pore chambers present. It appears that 

 the ovicell may be immersed in a kenozooecium {E. levata), a vicarious 

 avicularium {E. antarctica) or an autozooecium {E. incrustans)" (Hast- 

 ings, 1945 :87). 



The above description may now stand for this genus, which has been 

 much misunderstood even by its original author. Norman erected the 

 generic name, giving levata Hincks from the Queen Charlotte Islands 

 as the genotype, but unfortunately drew his description from a Gulf of 

 St. Lawrence specimen which was misidentified and which belongs else- 

 where. Norman's description of the genus is therefore in error, but his 

 selection of levata as the type definitely attaches the name Ellisina to the 

 species levata. Hastings (1930:713) pointed out Norman's error in 

 identification, but wrongly accepted his description as fixing the generic 

 name to the St. Lawrence specimen. More recently Hastings (1945:87) 

 has corrected her error because "a genotype explicitly named in the intro- 

 duction of a genus must stand despite any such discrepancies in the defi- 



