CYCLOSTOMATOUS BRYOZOA — CANU AND BASSLER. 46 



Measurements. — 



Separation of tubes 0.50 mm. 



Diameter of branches 2. 00 mm. 



Width of ovicell 1.90 mm. 



Length of ovicell .75 mm. 



A-ffinities. — In the genus Diaperoecia the large axis of the ovicell is 

 generally arranged in the direction of the zoarial axis. Here the 

 width is greater than the length and we have believed it useful to 

 note this exception. 



Occurrence. — Cretaceous (Danian) rHerfolge (Seeland), Denmark. 

 Eolotype.—Qdit. No. 68925, U.S.N.M. 



DIAPEROECIA COMPRESSA, new speciei. 



Plate 9, figs. 1-5. 



Description. — The branches of the zoarium are of bifoliate lamellae 

 much compressed. The zooecia are distinct, flat, separated by a quite 

 salient thread ; the peristomes are thin, somewhat salient, arranged 

 in irregular quincunx and always orbicular. The ovicell is globular, 

 quite convex, elongated, traversed by tubes which are almost always 

 closed by lamellae. 



Diameter of peristome 0.12 mm. 



Zooecial width .16 mm. 



Zooecial distance .55 to 0.64 mm. 



Measurements. — \ Separation of tubes .44to .48mm. 



Width of branches 1.25 mm. 



Length of ovicell 1. 20 to 1.60 mm. 



Width of ovicell . 60 to . 70 mm. 



Affinities. — In its exterior aspect and the salient separating threads 

 of the tubes this species much resembles M esenteripora vaudensis 

 D'Orbigny 1852 of the Swiss Neocomian. Unfortunately we are ig- 

 norant of the ovicell of this species, and the type itself is missing 

 from the Paris Museum. Comparison is therefore very difficult, but 

 according to D'Orbigny's figures the branches appear much wider 

 than those of our specimens. 



Occurrence. — Cretaceous (Danian) : Herfolge (Seeland), Denmark. 

 C oty pes. —C?ii. No. 68926, U.S.N.M. 



DIAPEROECIA DISTANS Hagcnow, 1851. 



Plate 9, fig-. 19, 



1851. Escharites distans Hagenow, Die Bryozoen der Maastrichter Kreide- 

 bildung, p. 56, pi. 1, figs. 16 a-e. (j, k, m (not f, h, i, I, and fig. 17). 

 Our ovicelled specimen has much resemblance to that figured by 

 Hagenow in 1851, but this author appears to have confused two 

 species, not only of different genera, but also of very different fami- 

 lies. We accept the interpretation of Pergens, 1887. 



