I 



ANTARCTIC BRYOZOA — ROGICK 277 



Dsburn and others as having only an olocyst. Many of the above 

 yith pleiirocyst) may have areolar pores, and some might even have 

 )ccasional pores elsewhere over the front. Those genera with a 

 iremocyst (frontal perforated more or less all over with pores, rather 

 ihan only with areolae) are Codonellina, Cyphonella, Plagiosmittia, 

 Schizosmittina, Smittina, and Smittinella. 



Osburn (1952, p. 392) gave a key to nine smittinid genera which 

 ijovers all but one {Smittinella) of the genera to be discussed in the 

 iresent study. 



|| Genus Mucronella Hincks, 1877 



Mucronella Hincks, 1877, p. 526 (defines genus); 1879, p. 162; 1880, p. 360.— 

 I Levinsen, 1902, p. 26 (erects family) ; 1909, pp. 336, 343 (places part of Hincks, 

 H Mucronella under Discopora, family Smittinidae). — Canu and Bassler, 1920, 

 F pp. 474-475.— Brown, 1952, pp. 297, 337, 380.— Bassler, 1953, p. G207. 



The above synonymy refers to significant references only. 



Remarks: Mucronella at present is in a very controversial state 

 because of the recent excellent publications by Bassler (1953), Brown 

 (1952), and Lagaaij (1952). The controversy is over whether Berenicea 

 immersa Fleming 1828 (unillustrated and most uncritically defined) is 

 the same as Lepralia peachii Johnston (1847, pi. 55, figs. 5, 6), and 

 whether genus Escharella Gray 1848, whose genotype is the question- 

 able B. immersa, is a valid genus. 



Bassler considers Lepralia peachii Johnston 1847 (now Mucronella 

 peachii) the type species of the genus Mucronella. Brown detaches 

 some of the Mucronella species (as has been the custom among various 

 workers) to other genera: Escharella, Escharoides, Exochella, Petraliella, 

 Umbonula, etc. Whether he still retains the original genus Mucronella 

 is not clear. At any rate he consigns Lepralia peachii Johnston 1847 

 to Berenicea immersa Fleming 1828 as a synonym and uses B. immersa 

 as the type species of the genus Escharella Gray 1848. But Bassler 

 (1935, p. 105; 1953, p. G235) maintains that Escharella is an unrecog- 

 nized and unnacceptable genus because its genotype, B. immersa 

 Fleming 1828, is a doubtful species. Following is Fleming's original 

 description of B. immersa, from page 533 of both his first (1828) and 

 his second (1842) editions: "Cells forming an even, rough crust; the 

 mouths declining, small, with a blunt tooth on the proximal margin. 

 On shells and corallines from deep water. Crust rather thick, of a 

 brownish colour; the divisions of the cells indistinct, the cells them- 

 selves being only a little elevated towards the aperture; the whole 

 surface minutely granular." Johnston's account and illustrations of 

 L. peachii are more precise. It would seem that Fleming's B. immersa 

 might be considered a dubious name. 



