MULTIFASCIGERA, HOMCEOSOLEN. 
69 
has not been generally accepted.^ It has, however, unquestionable 
claims to adoption, and the onlj- doubt is how much is to be 
included within it. The genus clearly differs from the Truncatula 
of von Hagenow, which is an OscuUpora, from which Homoeosolen 
may be distinguished by having its apertures scattered over the 
whole obverse surface, whereas in Osculipora they are collected into 
raised groups. The Truncatula of d’Orbigny (1854) is not the same 
as the Truncatula of von Hagenow, and overlaps with ITomoeosolen. 
The character of the zooecia in Homoeosolen has to be determined 
before its affinities are understood, and some of Lonsdale’s figures 
suggest that the genus may be dimorphic. The sections shown in 
Figs. 27 and 28, cut from undoubted specimens of Homoeosolen, 
show that the genus is monomorphic, and the zooecia consist of 
long, simple tubes. When the zooecia are cut across obliquely in 
longitudinal sections, such as Fig. 28 (p. 86), they sometimes appear 
tabulate ; the apparent partitions, however, are only the walls of 
the zooecia, which are lying oblique to the plane of the section. 
The apertures in well-preserved zooecia appear somewhat cres- 
centic, owing to the projection of the lower edge of the aperture. 
In well-preserved specimens the apertiires of the young zooecia 
are scattered over the obverse face, and resemble small pores. 
The zooecia in young zoaria are arranged in bundles, showing 
the affinities of the genus to Osculipora (see e.g. Fig. 26, p. 79). 
1. Homoeosolen pinnatus (Rbmer), 1840. 
Synonymy. 
Idmonea pimiata, Riinier, 1840. Verst, nordd. Kr. p. 20, pi. v. fig. 22. 
,, ,, Michelin, 1846. Icon. Zooph. p. 203, pi. lii. fig. 9. 
,, ,, von Hagenow, 1846. In Geinitz, Grundr. Verst, vol. ii. 
p. 591. 
non ,, ,, Giebel, 1848. Polyp. Planerm. : Zeit. Zool. Zoot. vol, i. 
p. 11. 
Crisisina ,, d’Orbigny, 1850. Prod. Pal. vol, ii. p. 175. 
Truncatula ,, d’Orbigny, 1854. Bry, Cret. p. 1053. 
,, ,, Simonowitsch, 1871. Bry. Ess.: Verb. nat. Ver. preuss. 
Kheinl. vol. xxviii. p. 58, pi. iv. fig. 1. 
' Doubt on the date of the publication has been suggested by Morris, who, 
though assigning Homoeosolen to 1849 in his text (Cat. Brit. Foss., 2nd ed., 1854, 
p. 125), recorded the date as 1852 in his list of references (p. v). Mr. Sherborn 
has shown (Geol. Mag. 1908, p. 287) that Dixon’s work Avas issued in 
December, 1850. 
