Phoceana tubulifera ( REUSS , 1847)

ZÁGORŠEK, KAMIL, 2010, BRYOZOA FROM THE LANGHIAN (MIOCENE) OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC PART II: SYSTEMATIC DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBORDER ASCOPHORA LEVINSEN, 1909 AND PALEOECOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE STUDIED PALEOENVIRONMENT, Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae Series B 66 (3 - 4), pp. 139-255 : 139-255

Phoceana tubulifera ( REUSS, 1847)

Pl. 114, Fig. 1-6

v. * 1847 Eschara tubulifera m. – Reuss p. 67, Pl. 8, Fig. 19

?1867 Eschara tubulifera nov. sp. – Heller p. 116, Pl. 3, Fig. 3-4

1977 Phoceana tubulifera ( REUSS, 1847) – Vávra p. 139 (cum syn.)

?2002 Phoceana tubulifera ( HELLER, 1867) – Hayward and McKinney p. 51, Fig. 23A-D

T y p e: Types deposited in the Natural History Museum Vienna under the number 1859.50.746 (Lectotype chosen by Vávra, 1977) .

M a t e r i a l: A common species, easily misinterpreted as Smittina cervicornis ; 20 specimens were studied in detail.

D i a g n o s i s: Colony bilaminar, large with a median lamella. The cross section circular to oval. Autozooecia in 6 to 10 longitudinal rows with perforated frontal wall. Nonporous area of frontal wall very small, restricted to the proximal margin of the aperture. Peristome short, aperture circular. A ridge is situated medially inside the aperture, sometimes very wide.

R e m a r k s: From a general view, this species may sometimes look like Smittina cervicornis , but it always differs with respect to the avicularia: they are inside the aperture.

The recent specimens ( Hayward and McKinney, 2002) are almost identical with fossil material, but the frontal wall has a large nonporous area. Hayward and McKinney (2002) however attributed this species to Heller (1867) and they did not discuss Reuss’ (1847) paper. Vávra (pers. comm., 2008) studied Heller’s (1867) type material deposited in Innsbruck and he synonymised Eschara tubulifera HELLER, 1867 with Smittina cervicornis . It is unclear, whether Hayward and McKinney (2002) also studied the type material, or only synonymised Heller’s species according to the illustration and therefore, the determination of Heller’s specimen remains uncertain. Nevertheless, Reuss’ (1847) description is the older one, thus his name has priority.