Phylum: Bryozoa
Class: Stenolaemata
Order: Cystoporata
Genus: Ceramophylla Ulrich, 1893
Cincinnatian Species: Ceramophylla alternatum, Ceramophylla commune, Ceramophylla oweni

[accordions title=”” disabled=”false” active=”1″ autoheight=”false” collapsible=”true”] [accordion title=”Taxonomic Details”]
Type Species: Ceramophylla frondosa (Ulrich, 1893)
Synonyms: Coeloclema Ulrich, Nickles & Bassler, 1900
Species found in Cincinnatian, USA

  • Ceramophylla alternata (James, 1878)
  • Ceramophylla vaupeli (Ulrich, 1890)
  • Coeloclema commune (Ulrich)
  • Coeloclema oweni (James)

Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part G (1983)

  • Diasmesopora vaupeli Ulrich, 1890, is here reassigned to Ceramophylla. C. vaupeli has widely but erroneously been cited as the type species of Coeloclema Ulrich (Utgaard, 1968b, p. 1453). Coeloclema Ulrich, 1883 is a fistuliporine wit a Silurian type species.”

[/accordion] [/accordions]

Stratigraphic Occurrences


Geologic Range
Middle Ordovician (Mohawkian) – Late Ordovician (Edenian)

Geographic Occurrences

Map point data provided by iDigBio.
[accordions title=”” disabled=”false” active=”1″ autoheight=”false” collapsible=”true”] [accordion title=”Stratigraphic Description”]
Sequences (Formations)

  • C5 Sequence (Whitewater)
  • C4 Sequence (Arnheim)
  • C3 Sequence (Mount Auburn)
  • C1 Sequence (Fulton, Economy, Southgate, McMicken) [/accordion] [/accordions]

Identification in Hand Sample:

  • Zoarium Morphology: Bifoliate or encrusting; or hollow ramose
  • Zooecia: Subcircular to circular. Walls thick, boundary jagged or indistinct.
  • Mesozooids: Few
  • Monticules: Small, with central cluster of exilazooecia; center sometimes subsolid.
  • Maculae: zooecia in monticules sometimes larger
[accordions title=”” disabled=”false” active=”1″ autoheight=”false” collapsible=”true”] [accordion title=”Published Description”]

Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology Part G (1983):

  • Zoarium bifoliate or incrusting expansions or hollow ramose. Monticules small. Mesotheca locally absent in some bifoliate zoaria. Autozooecia with cavity subcircular to circular. In exozone, walls thick, boundary jagged or indistinct. Irregular bundles of wall laminae intertonguing between boundary and cavity, producing mottled appearance in tangential section. Communication pores few, generally in inner exozone. Lunaria small in inner endozone; nearly as large at zooecial bend as at zoarial surface. One to a few cores in many lunaria. Laminae lining distal side of some lunaria. Diaphragms absent. Exilazooecia generally abundant, reduced in diameter toward zoarial surface and in some pinched out or filled with laminated deposit; walls thinner than autozooecial walls; diaphragms absent. Monticular cluster of exilazooecia having thicker walls; monticular center locally subsolid. Lunaria not in radial arrangement or only slightly skewed toward monticule. Zooecia in some slightly larger in monticules

Utgaard (1968):

  • Zoaria are bifolate undulatory frondose expansions, incrusting, or hollow ramose. Monticules are flush with the zoarial surface or are lowly elevated. Basal layers in incrusting hollow ramose zoaria are relatively thick and consist of a basal hyalinelike portion and a thin to thick laminated layer which is locally absent. Bifoliate zoaria have a thin to thick, undulatory median layer of hyalinelike calcite and, commonly, an outer laminated layer. Zooecia are recumbent for a short to a long distance and bend smoothly into the exozone. Recumbent sinuses are moderately well developed, straight or concave. Zooecia are moderately small and commonly are elongate-ovate in cross section in the exozone. Zooecial walls are thin and longitudinally laminated, locally transversely laminated, in the endozone. Walls thicken gradually or abruptly at the zooecial bend and generally are thick in the exosone. Laminae are broadly curved, and walls are amalgamate in appearance in the exozone. Zooecial boundary generally is obscure, locally is a thin zigzag line. Bundles of wall laminae, which commonly are not quite parallel, abut and intertongue between the boundary zone and the zooecial cavity. Small, elongate subcircular imperfections are common where bundles of laminae intertongue and produce a mottles appearance in tangential view. Some imperfections resemble trepostome mural lacunae. A thin zooecial lining is common. A few communication pores are generally in the inner exozone. Lunaria are small in the inner part of the endozone, increase in size conspicuously in the outer region of the endozone and increase in size slightly in the exozone. Lunarial deposits are light-colored dense calcite. Locally, one or a few corelike structures are surrounded by ill-defined laminae. Wall laminae descend from proximal sides of lunarial deposit at a moderate angle and commonly intertongue with the lunarial deposit. Lining of the laminae on distal side of lunarial deposit is present or absent. Diaphragms were not observed. Mesopores are generally abundant in the exozone; many become smaller distally and are minute or pinch out or are filled by a laminated deposit in the outer part of the exozone. Mesopore walls are similar in microstructure to zooecial walls but are commonly thinner and have either a thinner lining or no lining. Monticular centers consist of a subcircular to elongate, generally small cluster of thick-walled mesopores, locally approaching a subsolid appearance. Zooecia adjacent to monticular centers may be slightly larger than those in intermonticular areas. Lunaria are not radially arranged around monticules.

Nickles & Bassler (1900):

  • Zoarium erect, bifoliate, the two layers grown together back to back; in other respects like Ceramoporella and Coeloclema. Genotype and only known species: Ceramophylla frondosa (Ulrich) Ordovician

Ulrich (1896):

  • Zoaria erect, bifoliate, the two layers grown together back to back; in other respects like Ceramoporella and Diamesopora.
  • Type: C. frondosa, n. sp.
  • The leaf-like zoarium of the only species of this genus known, is in many respects very much like that of Rhinopora, Hall. Still they are very different structurally, and I am satisfied that the relationship between them must be quite remote. On the other hand, Ceramophylla may be justly called a bifoliate Ceramoporella, just as Diamesopora would be a ramose one.

[/accordion] [/accordions]