BItYOZOA OF THE PHILIPPINE REGION" 



335 



Affinities. — This species is very well characterized by the presence 

 of its frontal lamella. Although very rare, it appeared to us as 

 interesting as beautiful. Our specimens were dead. 



Occurrence. — D. 5151. Sirun Island, Sulu Archipelago; 5° 24' 40" 

 X.; 120° 27' 15" E.; 24 fathoms; co. S., Sh. 



Holotype— Oat. No. 8111, U.S.N.M. 



Genus STEPHANOPORA Kirkpatrick, 1888 



Zooecia with semicircular orifice, lower margin straight, not den- 

 tate, without sinus; peristome raised posteriority; from anterior 

 margins of walls thus formed, a 

 process is given off on each side 

 uniting in front to form with 

 posterior wall a tubular peristome 

 incomplete below. From lower 

 margin of peristome a broad 

 branched process is given off unit- 

 ing with processes from other zo- 

 oecia to form a secondary cribri- 

 form roof (Kirkpatrick). 



Genotype . — Stephanopora cribri- 

 spinata Kirkpatrick, 1888. Recent 

 (Indian Ocean). 



MISCELLANEOUS GENERA 

 ESCHARELLIDAE 



OF Fio. 135. — Genus Stephanopora Kirk- 

 patrick, 1888 



A, B. Stephanopora cribrispinata 

 Kirkpatrick, 1888. A. Anterior view 

 of zooecia. From the lower margin of 

 The ovicell is hyperstomial and the peristome a broad branched process 



Genus PSEUDOFLUSTRA Bidenkap, 

 1897 



is given off, uniting with the processes 

 from other zooecia to form a secondary 

 cribriform roof. B. Cell showing semi- 

 circular shape of the orifice. (After 

 Kirkpatrick, 1888. 



porous. The frontal is smooth 



and bordered with small areolar 



pores; it bears a median and lingui- 



form avicularium. There are two 



distal septulae and 7-8 lateral ones. 



The apertura is semicircular. No oral glands; no avicularian glands. 



The colony is radicelled and formed of lamellar segments united by 



the radical fibrils; 18 tentacles. 



Genotype. — Pseudoflustra (I'lustra) solida Stimpson, 1853. 



Range. — Recent (northern seas). 



Levinsen, 1887, and Waters, 1900, are not in accord as to the form 

 of the operculum. This genus appears to us almost identical with 

 Houzeauina Pergens, 1889 (fossil). We can make our conclusions 

 only after comparison of the apertural form viewed from the interior 

 in the two genera. 



