Watersipora subtorquata (d’Orbigny, 1852) has been widely reported as a fouling species from tropical to temperate waters. The continued confusion over the correct name for this species led us to provide a redescription of d’Orbigny’s type of Cellepora subtorquata, and to make comparisons with other species of Watersipora. We show that the majority of specimens assigned to W. subovoidea (d’Orbigny, 1852) are morphologically distinct from the recently erected neotype of W. subovoidea; these specimens are here reidentified as Watersipora subtorquata. Other specimens previously assigned to W. subtorquata belong to W. subatra (Ortmann, 1890), described originally from Japan. Owing these inconsistences, we suggest setting aside the neotype of Watersipora subovoidea, which is based on Busk’s Lepralia cucullata and is not from the same locality as d’Orbigny’s type. Watersipora cucullata is redescribed and figured using Busk’s specimens; the species is known from the Mediterranean, including the Adriatic. Three other species—Watersipora atrofusca (Busk, 1856), Watersipora aterrima (Ortmann, 1890) and Watersipora nigra (Canu & Bassler, 1930)—are also refigured. Watersipora edmondsoni Soule & Soule, 1975 is synonymised with W. subtorquata (d’Orbigny). Two new species are described, Watersipora mawatarii n. sp. from Japan and Watersipora souleorum n. sp. from the Azores, Cape Verde, Naples and Indian Ocean. A key is given to the Recent species of Watersipora.

Phylogenetic relationships and the timing of evolutionary events are essential for understanding evolution on longer time scales. Cheilostome bryozoans are a group of ubiquitous, species-rich, marine colonial organisms with an excellent fossil record but lack phylogenetic relationships inferred from molecular data. We present genome-skimmed data for 395 cheilostomes and combine these with 315 published sequences to infer relationships and the timing of key events among c. 500 cheilostome species. We find that named cheilostome genera and species are phylogenetically coherent, rendering fossil or contemporary specimens readily delimited using only skeletal morphology. Our phylogeny shows that parental care in the form of brooding evolved several times independently but was never lost in cheilostomes. Our fossil calibration, robust to varied assumptions, indicates that the cheilostome lineage and parental care therein could have Paleozoic origins, much older than the first known fossil record of cheilostomes in the Late Jurassic.