EARLY PALEOZOIC BRYOZOA OF THE BALTIC PROVINCES. 159 



Occurrence. — Common in the Richmond equivalent of the Anticosti 

 group on the island of Anticosti; less abundant in the Borkholm 

 limestone (F2) at Borkholm, Esthonia (Cat. No. 57253, U.S.N.M.). 



Typical specimens from Anticosti are in the collections of the 

 British Museum. 



Genus GLAUCONOME Goldfuss. 



Glauconome Goldfuss, Petrefacta Germanise, 1826, p. 100. — Lonsdale, Mxirch- 

 ison's Silurian System, 1839, p. 677. — Shrxjbsole and Vine, Quart. Joum. 

 Geol. Soc. London, voL 40, 1884, p. 329. 



Penniretepora d'Orbigny, Prodr. de PaL, voL 1, 1850, p. 45. 



The Borkholm limestone contains two species of Bryozoa with 

 close relations to Nematopora but differing in having one side non- 

 celluliferous. One of these is identical with Billings's Glauconome 

 strigosa, from the Anticosti group of Canada, while Wiman has 

 described a second as Glauconome plumula. Regarding the standing 

 of the name Glauconome, Lonsdale remarks as follows: 



Goldfuss has described under the generic name of Glauconome five fossils, four of 

 whicli, according to De Blainville (Man. d'Actinologie, p. 454) and Milne-Edwards 

 (2nd Edit. Lamarck, t. ii, p. 193), belong to the genus Vincularia, previously estab- 

 lished by De France (Diet. Sc. Nat., tom. Iviii, p. 214). The fifth species, common 

 at Dudley, possesses, however, characters essentially different from those of Vincu- 

 laria, and even to those assigned to Glauconome by Goldfuss. Instead of the stem 

 being impressed on all sides with rows of cells, it has them over only half the surface, 

 the other half being striated longitudinally. It is probable that the position of the 

 fossil in the matrix prevented that author from detecting the true characters of the 

 coral. For this fossil it has been thought right to retain Goldfuss 's name, but a modi- 

 fication in both the generic and specific characters has become necessary. Gen. 

 char. — Stem stony, thin, elongated, oval, branched; cells disposed longitudinally 

 and alternately in rows over one-half the surface, the other half striated longitudi- 

 nally. Nature of the covering and opening of the cells imknown. 



Later work by Vine and Shrubsole led them to suggest that the 

 name Glauconome be retained for the G. disticTia Jjonsdsile. In 1847 

 D'Orbigny in his Prodrome de Paleontologie proposed Penniretepora. 

 His work on the subject is quoted below: 



Penniretepora d 'Orb. 1847. Deux rang^esde cellules d'unseulcdte. Ensemble 

 penniforme, avec une tige at des rameaux libres lateraux. 



Lonsdalei d'Orb. 1847. Glauconome disticha, Lonsdale, 1839. In Murch. 

 Silur. Syst., pi. 15, fig. 12d (non Glauconome disticha Gold., 1830), Angle- 

 terre, Wenlock-rock. 



To sum up, I beheve Lonsdale, Vine, and Shrubsole to be correct 

 in recognizing Glauconome, for the following reasons. Goldfuss 

 specified no particular type for his genus. Lonsdale was justified, 

 therefore, according to the rules of nomenclature, in adopting G. 

 disticlia, and in redefining the genus. Although Goldfuss did not 

 figure the noncelluliferous side of G. disticJia, in fact, did not even 



