Cunnolitidae Alloiteau, 1952

Baron-Szabo, Rosemarie C., 2008, Dendrophylliina, Caryophylliina, Fungiina, Microsolenina, and Stylinina, Zootaxa 1952, pp. 1-244 : 167-168

Family Cunnolitidae Alloiteau, 1952

(=ex Cyclolitidae d'Orbigny, 1851 )

Diagnosis. Solitary and colonial, subdiscoid, patellate, or cupolate. Hermatypic. Colony formation by circumoral or intratentacular budding. Corallite wall synapticulothecal. Epitheca present or absent. Costosepta as in Synastreidae . Septal perforations at inner ends and near upper margins. Septa strongly beaded marginally, perforations generally filled secondarily, axis of trabecular divergence inclined outward. Endothecal dissepiments and columella weak or absent. Homeomorphic with Fungiidae .

Remarks. The validity of the genus Cunnolites has been discussed for about 250 years. Originally, the name Cunnolites was created 'pre-Linnean' by Barrère (1746), and was 'post-Linnean' renamed by Guettard, 1774, as Porpites ellipticus . Lamarck (1801) re-assigned the same specimen again and placed it as the third species in his newly created genus Cyclolites (= Cyclolites ellipticus Lamarck, 1801 ). Later investigations by Milne Edwards & Haime (1850) revealed that the two species placed before Cyclolites ellipticus , which are Cyclolites numismalis and Cyclolites hemisphaerica , belonged to Palaeozoic forms and had to be excluded from the synonymy of Cyclolites . At the same time they chose Cyclolites ellipticus Lamarck to be the type species of the genus. For priority reasons Alloiteau (1952a, 1957) did not accept the revision by Milne Edwards & Haime (1850). He argued that if the author of a new genus presented more than one species but did not designate a type species then the first species listed had to be acknowledged as the type species. And because in the case of Cyclolites the first species represents the type species of the Palaeozoic taxon Palaeocyclus Milne Edwards & Haime , he rejected the validity of the genus Cyclolites and created the taxon Cunnolites . This revision caused confusion in the literature in that some authors started using the new name established by Alloiteau, whereas others kept to the traditional name by Lamarck. The problematic situation was even more complicated by the creation of new genera named Plesiocunnolites Alloiteau, 1957 , Plesiocunnolitopsis M. Beauvais, 1964 , and Paracunnolites M. Beauvais, 1964. Some authors have accepted these as valid genera, others have ranked them in the subgenus level of Cyclolites or Cunnolites , and still others have put them in synonymy of Cyclolites or Cunnolites .

This case can only be resolved by the Commission of Zoological Nomenclature. However, in order to avoid further confusion, the name Cunnolites , based on the type species Cunnolites barrerei Alloiteau, 1957 ,

According to Vaughan & Wells (1943), Wells (1956), and others, the Family Cunnolitidae Alloiteau, 1952a (=ex Cyclolitidae d'Orbigny, 1851 ) was characterized by solitary forms that were “free in ephebic stage”. However, as has been documented by, e.g., Sanders & Baron-Szabo (2007), forms of Cunnolites can very well stay attached throughout their whole life. Therefore, the characteristic “free in ephebic stage” was removed from the diagnosis of the family.