152 
G. W. Lee — Trepostomata. 
tabulated form, it is proposed here to modify the original diagnosis so as to include species 
haying more or less tabulated zooecia. This step is more convenient than to propose for 
the tabulated group a new generic designation which—apart from the fact that it might 
possibly be proved unwarranted from a phylogenetic point of view—would be of difficult 
application when dealing with forms in which the tabulae can be so scarce as to escape 
observation. 
Geinitzella Waagen and Wentzel includes forms having the essential characters 
assigned here to Dyscritella , but as Waagen and Wentzel 1 did not indicate which of their 
several “ varieties ” was to be taken as genotype, the genolectotype must be the first in 
order of description, i.e., Geinitzella ramosa, var. incrustans , 2 which is a species devoid of 
mesopores. Had these authors reversed the order of description, the “ variety ” multi- 
gemmata —which has numerous untabulated mesopores 3 —could have been selected as 
genolectotype, so that Geinitzella might have been made to include the species for which 
the name Dyscritella is used here. 
There is a close similarity of structure between the untabulated species of Dyscritella 
and the genus Anaphragma Ulrich and Bassler 4 lrom the Ordovician rocks of America. 
But as no species of Anaphragma appears to have been recorded from higher horizons the 
resemblance is probably merely homoeomorphic. 
Genus Koninckopora gen. nov. 
This genus is proposed for the reception of Calamopora injlata de Koninck. Its 
systematic position is uncertain, and it may not be a trepostomatous Bryozoon, but it is 
included here for the sake of convenience. 
Since the type-species alone is known, a strict generic diagnosis covering all the 
possible variations from the type, can naturally not be given, but the main characters of 
the genotype may be summarized as follows :— 
Colony composed of a thick epizoarium which may be tubular or folded upon itself, 
bearing very short erect zooecia which are not differentiated into axial and peripheral 
regions. Mesopores, acanthopores and tabulae absent. 
This short abstract, insufficient in itself, is enough to show the position of the genus 
relatively to the other genera described in this contribution. A full description is 
given on p. 182. 
1 49, p.. 880. . 
3 Op. cit., pi. 112, fig. 
2 49, p. 883, pi. 106, figs. 5, 6. 
pi. 113, figs. 2, 4. 4 45, p. 49. 
