42 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. vol.xxx.i. 



This species is distinguished b}^ its thin, lamellate growth and b}^ 

 the small size of the zo(jecial tubes. 



Locality and Iwrizon. — Pre-Pennsylvanian (i'); near Ta-miau-ssi, 

 East Ssi'-chu'an (Stations 6, 8, and 9). 



GEINITZELLA CHINENSIS, new species. 



Description. — The growth of this species is dendroid, specimens 

 occurring in long cylindrical trunks, from which, in some instances, 

 spring smaller branches. All the specimens examined are fragmen- 

 tar}^, the largest having a length of 110 nmi. They vary nmch in 

 point of size. The largest yet noted has a diameter of 17 mm., but 

 the average is nearer 15 mm. In some specimens low monticules, 

 more or less distinctly elongated in a transverse direction, form a 

 noticea1:)le feature, which may have been present in all. The mature 

 region, where the cells had a horizontal direction, measures -1 mm. in 

 a large example. 



In thin sections the species shows the usual structural variation 

 where difierent stages of development are examined. From seven to 

 eight cells occur in a linear distance of 2 mm. The acanthopores are 

 large, and var}^ greath^ in number and appearance in sections made at . 

 diiferent points of the same zoarium. In longitudinal section a few 

 scattered diaphragms occur just before the cells thicken their walls 

 and bend into a horizontal direction. 



This species is closely related to GeinitzeUa columymris Schlotheim, 

 as identified by Waagen and Wentzel in India, but it hardly seems 

 that the Chinese form can be immediatel}^ placed with that species. 

 Waagen and Wentzel state that G. coluinnari)< rarely attains a size of 

 5 mm., and that a diameter of but 2 mm. is often met w^ith. The 

 Chinese form is thus seen to be at least three times as large. So far 

 as observed also, it is never incrusting, a mode of growth which the 

 Indian form is said to exhibit. In thin sections, however, the two 

 species are extremely similar. One distinction which appears to exist 

 is that the cells are a little larger in the Chinese form. Waagen and 

 Wentzel do not state this character in their description, and certain 

 discrepancies which appear to exist between different degrees of mag- 

 nification said to be represented by their figures, make it impossible 

 to obtain altogether reliable measurements from that source. Appar- 

 enth" G. coluniiiaris presents nine or ten cells in 2 mm. The presenc^e 

 or absence of tabuhe is not stated in the text of their description, but 

 none are represented in their figures. The Chinese form certainly 

 possesses tabulae, and it seems likely that they will also be found in 

 that from India. 



With the differences above noted it seems inadvisable to refer the 

 Chinese form to G. colimuiaria., though it is possible that it will prove 



