The known occurrence of corals distinguished here in the new Family Krynkaphyllidae varies at the subfamily level. Those of the Subfamily Krynkaphyllinae subfam. nov. are so far almost unknown from outside of the Donets Basin. In contrast, those of the Subfamily Colligophyllinae subfam. nov. are common, possibly ranging from the lower Viséan Dorlodotia Salée, 1920, a potential ancestor of the family, to the Artinskian Lytvophyllum tschernovi Soshkina, 1925. They bear different generic names, but were all originally described as fasciculate colonial. A detailed study of Lytvophyllum dobroljubovae Vassilyuk, 1960, the type species of Colligophyllum gen. nov., challenges that recognition in that at least some of those taxa are solitary and gregarious and/or protocolonial. As such, solitary, protocolonial and, probably, fasciculate colonial habits are accepted in the Colligophyllinae subfam. nov., whereas the Krynkaphyllinae subfam. nov. contains only solitary taxa. The resemblance to the Suborder Lonsdaleiina Spasskiy, 1974 led to the analysis of families included in that suborder by Hill (1981) in the context of their relationship, or homeomorphy, to Krynkaphyllidae fam. nov. This question primarily concerns the Family Petalaxidae Fomichev, 1953; a relationship with the Family Geyerophyllidae Minato, 1955, is more distant, if one exists. The distinct, parallel stratigraphic successions of taxa within two subfamilies of the Krynkaphyllidae fam. nov. document their probably common roots and early divergence. However, a lack of robust data precludes an interpretation or treatment of those successions as phylogenetic. The absence of key stratigraphic and morphologic data meant that eastern Asiatic taxa have not been considered in these successions; however, morphological similarities allow for their tentative inclusion within the Krynkaphyllidae fam. nov. The following new taxa are introduced: Krynkaphyllidae fam. nov., Krynkaphyllinae subfam. nov., Colligophyllinae subfam. nov., Krynkaphyllum gen. nov., Colligophyllum gen. nov., Protokionophyllum feninoense sp. nov., Krynkaphyllum multiplexum sp. nov., Krynkaphyllum validum sp. nov., and three species of Protokionophyllum Vassilyuk in Aizenverg et al., 1983 left in open nomenclature.

The extinct arachnid order Trigonotarbida Petrunkevitch, 1949 is reported here for the first time from Ukraine. The material consists of an opisthosoma preserved in ventral view from the upper Carboniferous (lower Moscovian; Paralegoceras–Eowellerites ammonoid zone) of the Gorlivka locality in the Donets Basin, eastern Ukraine. Formal assignment to a family or genus is difficult, but the preserved ventral anatomy is consistent with a member of the families Aphantomartidae Petrunkevitch, 1945, Kreischeriidae Haase, 1890 or Eophrynidae Karsch, 1882. It is noteworthy for expanding the known distribution of trigonotarbids in Europe and is only the second Palaeozoic arachnid to be formally described from Ukraine; the other being the carapace of a whip scorpion (Thelyphonida Latreille, 1804) from Lomovatka in the Luhansk Region, also in the Donets Basin.

A new Subfamily Dirimiinae of the Family Kumpanophyllidae Fomichev, 1953 is introduced on the basis of Dirimia gen. nov., which is represented by six new named species and three species left in open nomenclature. The new species are Dirimia multiplexa, D. similis, D. recessia, D. composita, D. extrema, D. nana, Dirimia sp. 1, Dirimia sp. 2 and Dirimia sp. 3. The progressing atrophy of the columnotheca, leading to its total reduction in extreme species, and the occurrence of an axial structure instead of a compact pseudocolumella established in these species are accepted as differences exceeding the genus level. All specimens assigned to this subfamily were derived from the same Limestone F1 of the Donets Basin, and mostly from the same locality. The reasons for their split into a relatively large number of species are: 1) an increased radiation typical for faunal turnover times; 2) a delay in the appearance of differentiated skeletal characters relative to the appearance of genetic differences large enough to characterise different species; 3) a bias in preservation of fossil remnants by comparison to living populations, amplified by biases in the collections available for study by comparison to the total number of specimens fossilised.