TRIPL OPHYLLI TES 



37 



sulae], that of the cardinal septum is most 

 strongly developed, whereas those of both 

 alar septa are weakly represented and that 

 of the counter septum is hardly noticeable. 

 The septa of the second order, which alter- 

 nate with those of the first [order], are 

 weakly developed and are apparent only on 

 the inner surface of the moderately deep 

 calyx. The tabulae are complete and extend 

 almost to the theca. An endothecal tissue is 

 lacking or is merely present in embryonic 

 development, wherein it is present most 

 often in the basal part of the corallites. The 

 genus differs from the genus Zaphretitis by 

 the weak development of both alar septa 

 of the first order and of the counter septum, 

 which are situated in fossulae. Among the 

 species already known, Zaphrentoides (Za- 

 phrentis) griffithi Edwards and Haime also 

 belongs thereto." (Free translation of orig- 

 inal German diagnosis, [Stuckenberg, 1895, 

 p. 191] by the writer.) 



Equivalence of Zaphrentoides and Trip- 

 lophyllites would result if it could be proved 

 that Stuckenberg's statement is true that 

 Zaphrentoides has an "endothecal tissue" 

 (dissepiments) in the basal part of the cor- 

 allites (Stuckenberg, 1895, p. 191). It is 

 naturally probable that the Russian species 

 studied by Stuckenberg have the structures 

 assigned to them, but it is not necessarily 

 true that Z. griffithi^ which Stuckenberg 

 mentioned only incidentally but which was 

 subsequently (Schindewolf, 1938, p. 449) 

 made the genotype of Zaphrentoides, also 

 has dissepiments. Schindewolf (admittedly) 

 and Stuckenberg (probably) based their 

 concepts of Z. griffithi in part on Thom- 

 son's concept of that species, which he said 

 (Thomson, 1881, p. 218) has "curved inter- 

 septal dissepiments." Probably Thomson's 

 "curved interseptal dissepiments" are for the 

 most part traces of tabulae, but some of 

 them may represent dissepiments. Hill 

 studied Thomson's figured specimen and 

 concluded that Z. griffithi Milne-Ed- 

 wards and Haime, Thomson, 1881 is a jun- 

 ior synonym of Z. curvilinea Thomson^. It 

 is doubtful that Z. griffithi Milne-Edwards 

 and Haime, Thomson, 1881 is conspecific 

 with Z. griffithi Milne-Edwards and 

 Haime, 1851. 



In any case, Schindewolf's designation of 

 Z. griffithi as the genotype of Zaphrentoides 

 obviously must find basis upon Milne-Ed- 

 wards and Haime's species and not upon 



Thomson's concept of that species. The 

 fact is that, contrary to Schindewolf's state- 

 ment (1938, p. 449), Z. griffithi is not 

 "well known." Until Zaphrentoides is ex- 

 amined upon the basis of its genoholotype, 

 its status will remain uncertain. If the geno- 

 holotype be lost, it is suggested that Zaph- 

 rentoides be allowed to lapse as far as it 

 concerns "zaphrentid" nomenclature, ex- 

 cept, of course, that it would then exist as a 

 monotypic genus of unknown relationship. 



(2) Amplexi-ZaphrentisVaughan, 1906, 

 was proposed as a subgenus of Zaphrenthis 

 with three genosyntypes indicated, one of 

 which, Z. bowerbanki Milne-Edwards and 

 Haime, Thomson, 1883 (pi. 6, fig. 3), was 

 chosen as genolectotype by Lang, Smith, and 

 Thomas (1940, p. 16). Hill considered this 

 "species" of Thomson's to be a junior syn- 

 onym of Z. curvilinea Thomson, 1881. As 

 pointed out above, Thomson's concept of 

 Z. griffithi was considered by Hill to be 

 representative of Z. curvilinea. If so, Ain- 

 plexi-Zaphrentis is a junior synonym of at 

 least part of the basis of Schindewolf's con- 

 cept of Zaphrentoides, but there is no proof 

 that the two genera are actually synony- 

 mous. 



Carruthers (1908, p. 158) considered 

 Ainplexi-Zaphrentis to be a junior synonym 

 of Caninia. It appears that this view would 

 be acceptable from a study of Vaughan's 

 diagnosis of Ainplexi-Zaphrentis and from 

 a study of the figured specimen (Vaughan, 

 1906, pi. 39, fig. 7), but the subsequent 

 designation of a type for Amplexi-Zaphren- 

 tis seems to the writer probably to have 

 changed the original concept of the genus. 



(3) Menophyllum Milne-Edwards and 

 Haime, 1850 is not known well enough to 

 permit evaluation of the genus. It is thought 

 to be nearly related to Triplophyllites, if not 

 actually to be a senior synonym. Girty 

 (1911, p. 28) once referred a specimen to 



3 Hill (1940, p. 126) believed that Z. enniskilleni 

 Milne-Edwards and Haime (which "may well belong to 

 the same generic group as Z. delanouei" [idem, p. 144]) 

 should be referred to what is here called Triplophyllites, 

 and that Z. curvilinea belongs in the same genus (idem, 

 p. 140). Hill did not specifically mention the presence 

 or absence of dissepiments in the discussions of the 

 Z. enniskilleni and Z. delanouei species-groups, but she 

 did say (idem, p. 143) that there are no dissepiments in 

 Z. curvilinea, which she placed in the former group. 

 On the other hand, illustrations of species (Thomson, 

 1881, pi. 3, figs. 4, 5) which Hill also placed in synony- 

 my with Z. curvilinea Thomson seem to me to show 

 sparse dissepiments in longitudinal section. Finally, Hill's 

 illustration of Z. curvilinea (1940, pi. 7, fig. 2) ap- 

 pears to me to show dissepiments in the upper left 

 corner, near the upper right corner, and at the lower 

 left side. 



