History: (Nickles & Bassler, 1900 – Under Chiloporella nicholsoni)
- 1875 Ceramopora nicholsoni James, Catal. Foss. Cinncinnati Group, p. 3.
- 1888 Monticulipora (Fistulipora) nicholsoni James and James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XI, p. 34, pl. i, 6-6c.
- 1896 Monticulipora (Fistulipora) nicholsoni J.F. James, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVIII, p. 121, fig. 12.
- 1878 Fistulipora? multipora James, Paleontologist, No. 1, p. 2.
- 1879 Fistulipora siluriana James, Paleontologist, No. 3, p. 19.
- 1879 Fistulipora flabellata Ulrich, Jour. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., II, p. 28, pl. vii, 26-26b.
- 1890 Chiloporella flabellata ulrich, Geol. Surv. Illinois, VIII, p. 381, pl. xxxix, 5-5b.
- Cincinnati (Lorraine): Cincinnati, Ohio region, and vicinity
[leaflet-map lat=39 lng=-84.5 zoom=7 width=575 height=250 align="right"]
Map point data provided by iDigBio.
- C3 Sequence (Corryville)
- Zoarium Morphology: Encrusting layers (Parasitic sheets); Superimposed layers may form masses
- Zoecia: Thickened walls, oval apertures
- Mesozooids: Numerous, often more or less isolating the zooecia
- Monticules: Rounded monticules sometimes present
- Maculae: N/A
Ceramoporella flabellata from the Arnheim Formation of Hamilton, Ohio (OUIP 1227)
- Branches of zooarium characteristically flattened and expanded
- Has a frondose, as well as an incrusting, growth habit. Frondose zooaria commonly have larger and longer zooecia in the endozone. In addition, C. flabellata has thicker walls and zooecial linings and displays only slight and partial radial arrangements of the lunaria around a monticule. These differences and the difference in growth habit are not considered to be sufficient grounds for recognizing Cheiloporella as a genus distinct from Ceramoporella, particularly as many zoaria of C. flabellata have incrusting bases or incrusting overgrowths or are incrusting in growth habit.
- This is the only described species [in the Ordovician of Indiana]
- C. flabellata: This is the only described species. It forms flabellate expansions from a few to 15 mm or more thick. Rounded monticules sometimes developed. Mesopores more or less isolating the zooecia
Parks & Dryer (1922):
- The following description is founded on Ulrich’s original definition amended by observations on our specimens. The zoarium consists of irregular, fan-like, bifoliate expansions. The thickness usually varies from one to four millimetres. The surface is undulating, being raised into broad and inconspicuous monticules with the cooecial apertures disposed in bent and rather irregular rows. The openings are irregularly round to slightly oval, and are separated by intervals varying from nothing to a space as great or greater, than the diameter of the tubes themselves. An average of three zooecial openings appear in the distance of one millimeter and the interzooecial spaces show the openings of numerous mesopores.
- Vertical sections show wide, open tubes and broad interspaces with mesopores in the peripheral region while in the immature region there are no mesopores, but, owing to the inclination of the young cells, cross sections of prostrate tubes. No distinct diaphragms were observed. The mesotheca seems to be composed of very irregular, discontinuous, fluctuating laminae.
- Tangential sections show the irregular character of the zooecial tubes, their varying distance apart, the thick walls of the peripheral region, and the aggregation of mesopores into groups in certain parts of the zoarium. Deep tangential sections show the absence of mesopores and the irregularly angular form and unequal size of the zooecia. This is shown slightly in the upper, right hand corner of Plate I, Figure 1.