Cheiloporinidae BASSLER 1936
Creators: name: ZÁGORŠEK, KAMIL
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2010
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Bryozoa
Gymnolaemata
Cheilostomatida
Cheiloporinidae

description: Family Cheiloporinidae BASSLER, 1936 Genus Hagiosynodos BISHOP et HAYWARD, 1989   
Colony encrusting. Frontal wall perforated by many pores. Aperture with large condyles and with characteristically enlarged proximo-lateral corners. No oral spines. Small suboral avicularia may be present. Ovicell deeply immersed into the distal part of the autozooecium, ovicell with porous frontal wall.  
 R e m a r k: Bishop and Hayward (1989) placed Hagiosynodos in Hippoporidridae VIGNEAUX, 1949, but recently Hayward and McKinney (2002) listed the Hagiosynodos in the family Cheiloporinidae BASSLER, 1936.   
  Hagiosynodos campanulata (CIPOLLA, 1921)  Pl. 128, Fig. 1-4   
 ? v. 1874 Lepralia sulcifera m.– Reuss p. 176, Pl. 8, Fig. 8   
 ? 1974 Hippoporina sulcifera (REUSS, 1874) – David and Pouyet p. 176, Pl. 7, Fig. 4   
 2006 Cheiloporina campanulata (CIPOLLA, 1921) – Berning p. 96, Fig. 121, 122 (cum syn.)   
M a t e r i a l: Altogether 8 specimens were studied from different localities.  
D i a g n o s i s: Oval elongated autozooecia. Frontal wall perforated by 25-35 large pores. Avicularia in pairs, very small, almost indistinct, placed very close to the margin of the aperture. Ovicell small, immersed, very strongly, but irregularly perforated by smaller pores than the frontal wall. No ribs, no umbo on the ovicell.  
 R e m a r k s: Lepralia sulcifera REUSS, 1874 was re-described as Hippoporina sulcifera (REUSS, 1874) by David and Pouyet (1974); it is very similar when compared with the described species, but no ovicell was preserved in this specimen. Therefore, an exact determination of Reuss’ species is impossible.   
 Hagiosynodos campanulata (CIPOLLA, 1921) differs from Hippopodinella lata (BUSK, 1856) as described by Schmid (1989) as well as from Hagiosynodos lata as described by Hayward and Ryland (1999). Recent species and Schmid’s specimens show prominent ribs on the ovicell as well as smaller frontal pores and larger avicularia situated on small umbones.   
 Cheiloporina as originally described by Canu and Bassler (1923), has an endozooecial ovicell; this means: no separation between the ovicell and the distal autozooecium. Hagiosynodos campanulata shows the distinct shape of the ovicell, even when deeply immersed. A second characteristic feature of the genus Cheiloporina is a considerable difference between ovicelled and non-ovicelled autozooecia. The ovicelled autozooecia have an aperture almost twice the size of the aperture in the non-ovicelled ones (Canu and Bassler, 1923). None of these features are visible in Hagiosynodos campanulata, making an attribution to the genus Cheiloporina improbable. Hagiosynodos is a genus more similar to our material: due to the presence of the characteristic shape of the aperture, the small avicularia and the porous frontal wall of the ovicell. Another similar genus is Hippopodina LEVINSEN, 1909 (revised by Tilbrook, 1999), which differs however mainly in having adventitious avicularia associated with the aperture.
description: Published as part of 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, pp. 139-255 in Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae Series B 66 (3 - 4) on pages 139-255, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13344847