BBYOZOA OF THE PHILIPPINE BEGION 109 



Genus CAULORAMPHUS Norman, 1903 



CAULORAMPHUS DISJUNCTUS. new species 



Plate 8, figs. 4-6 



Description. — The zoarium encrusts siliceous pebbles. The zooecia 

 are distinct, separated by a deep furrow, elongated, pyriform and 

 bear at their base a very small concave gymnocyst; the mural rim 

 is broad and rounded and bears 8 to 9 pairs of spicules placed close 

 together and 4 to 6 somewhat smaller distal spines; the opesium is 

 oval, entire. On the mural rim in the vicinity of the aperture there 

 is a pedunculate avicularium rather long, triangular, erect. The 

 zooecia are separated but they are united by connecting tubes. 



Measurements. — 



^ • lho = 0.32-0.35 mm. ~ . jLz = 0.50-0.60 mm. 



Opesium , n Zooecium<L 



F ilo = 0.15-0.18 mm. Uz = 0.35 mm. 



Affinities. — This species is perfectly characterized by the separated 

 zooecia. Hincks, 1885, proved that the separation of the zooecia 

 is not a generic character and that it can occur in species belonging 

 to different families. On worn specimens the trace of spines is 

 revealed by irregular tuberosities and that of the large pedunculate 

 avicularia is marked by a pit. Our specimens were not ovicelled. 



Occurrence— D. 4807. Cape Tsiuka, Sea of Japan; 41° 36' 12" N.; 

 140° 36' E. 



Cotypes.— Cat. No. 7885, U.S.N.M. 



Genus GEPHYROTES Norman, 1903 



1920. Gephyrotes Canu and Bassler, North American Early Tertiary Bryozoa, 

 Bull. 106, U. S. National Museum, p. 300. 



In introducing this genus into our nomenclature of 1920 we con- 

 sidered especially the spiramen which we thought corresponded to a 

 special function. Also all the species do not have the same frontal 

 structure and often it is totally different from that of the genotype; 

 in Gephyrotes spinosa it is identical with that in Acanthocella. If this 

 genus is indeed natural, it will be proof once more that the aspect of 

 the frontal can not furnish generic characters since it results simply 

 from the ordinary variations of the primitive spines. If we are de- 

 ceived in our views it is necessary to range the species with dietellae 

 in Cribrilina as Levinsen thought in 1909. Lang, 1922, gave the 

 greatest importance to the form and the arrangement of the costules. 

 This is not our view for the exterior ornamentation can not serve to 

 establish a natural classification. 



Genus FRURIONELLA Canu and Bassler, 1925 



1925. Frurionella Canu and Bassler, Fauna of the Ripley Formation on Coon 

 Creek, Tennessee, Bryozoa, Prof. Paper 137, U. S. Geological Survey, 

 p. 35. 



