360 PALEONTOLOGY OF ILLINOIS. 



while for Goniocladia Ethridge and Ramipora Toula the sub- 

 family GONIOCLADINJE is erected. 



This classification has as little, or even less merit than Vine's, 

 being based upon the presence or absence of a median keel, a 

 character shown by experience to be unreliable. All the genera 

 in the first and second divisions, excepting Septopora, Syno- 

 cladia, and, probably, Ptilopora and Dendricopora, belong to 

 the FENESTELLID.E as here defined, but Goniocladia is very differ- 

 ent, being related to the CYSTODICTYONID.E, where I would place 

 it provisionally. Ramipora is doubtful, and before its position 

 can be determined, must be subjected to recent methods of in- 

 vestigation. 



The typical genera of this and the following family have 

 heretofore been regarded, I believe, universally, as CYCLOSTO- 

 MATA. This now seems to be a wrong collocation, resulting 

 from defective observation of certain deceptive peculiarities in 

 their structure. In the first place the zooecia have always been 

 described as tubular. This, however, is an error, as only the 

 vestibular prolongation of the orifice is tubular, the true ZOCB- 

 cium being an horizontal cell of quadrate or hexagonal form, 

 with both ends truncated. The aperture, furthermore, is not 

 situated at the end of a tubular zooecium as in the CYCLOSTO- 

 MATA, but occupies the anterior portion of the upper side 

 (front) of the cell; in short, the cell agrees in form with those 

 of the Escharine group of the CHILOSTOMATA, to the same ex- 

 tent as those of Ptilodictya and other genera referred to the 

 new sub-order CRYPTOSTOMATA. Vine, in briefly discussing the 

 subject, brings out another point in their structure, which he 

 compares to the foraminated condition of the walls of the 

 TUBULIPORHLE, namely, the minute tubuli which penetrate the 

 dense deposits of laminated sclerenchyma on both the front of 

 the zooecia and the basal plate on the reverse side of the 

 zoarium. 



Admitting provisionally the propriety of the comparison, I 

 ask, will it not apply fully as well to the CHILOSTOMATA, since a 

 foraminated cell front is well known to be present in many 

 genera of the sub-order? Why should the answer not be yes, 

 and, if we take other points of structure into consideration, 

 better? My space being limited, I am not at liberty to enter 



