﻿American Palceozoic Fossils. 



37 



be called, is marked by its slender, remotely bifurcated zoarium. The 

 branches have a width of from .04 to .07 inch, and a thickness of .02 

 to .03 inch. The surfaces are more or less convex, and longitudi- 

 nally furrowed like C. lineata., n. sp., and in these furrows the zooecial 

 apertures, which are directed obliquely inward, are situated. The 

 crescentic lip is well developed, and placed at the lower and outer 

 margin of the aperture. On account of the prominence of the lip, 

 the zooecial apertures appear to be decidedly oblique. The margins 

 of the zoarium are more or less acute, non-poriferous and finely stri- 

 ated. Each side of a branch carries four, sometimes five, longitudinal 

 rows of cells, in which about nine occur in the space of .2 inch. 



Cystodictya lineata, n. sp. (PI. II., figs. 4, 4«, 46 and 4c). 



Zoarium dividing dichotomously at intervals of 0.5 inch to 1.0 inch; 

 width of branches from 0.12 to 0.20 inch; greatest thickness, about 

 0.04 inch; non-poriferous margin narrow, smooth or finely striated; 

 edges acute. Surface of each face more or less elevated, rounded, and 

 often faintly striated, longitu clinal ridges, between which the cell 

 apertures are arranged. Under a magnifier of low power these are 

 elliptical or subcircular, but under a higher power are seen to be 

 depressed-pyriform, the margin of the aperture being inflected by the 

 ends of the elevated crescentic lip. In eve^ instance the lip is 

 placed on the outer lateral margin of the cell orifice, so that on each 

 side of the longitudinal center of the branch the zooecial apertures 

 appear to be directed toward each other. Toward the sharp borders 

 the vertical ridges become less prominent, and here the cells are, gen- 

 erally, also larger, and often occupy the oblique summits of small 

 papillae. In a longitudinal direction usually three, rarely four, cells 

 occupy the space of 0.1 inch; in the same space diagonally there are 



fest that I am forced to the ronviction that he did not give to these intricate forms the 

 study they demand. For instance, it is very evident that he did not understand the char- 

 acters of Cystodictya parallela (Arcanopora parallela, Vine), or he would not have placed 

 it in such close proximity to Ptilodictya lonsdalei. These two species resemble each other 

 only in the possession of zooecia, and a double-leaved zoarium. In other respects they are 

 no more than only remotely related. Another instance is found where he proposes the 

 fam. Polyporidm. He is a shrewd naturalist, indeed, that succeeds in separating Polypora 

 from Fenestella, to such an extent. American strata contain so many intermediate forms 

 that I find no little difficulty in drawing the generic line. On the whole, I believe that Mr. 

 Vine's knowledge of Palaeozoic Bryozoa is not unlimited, although the unsuspecting stu- 

 dent might, from his style, be led to believe that he had, at least, aided in the creation of 

 the Bryozoa. I confess that I have not been so impressed, and, if I may be so bold, I should 

 suggest that Mr. Vine extend his researches to other than British material. The almost 

 endless number and variety of American forms are to be recommended. 



