108 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



In 1886 Mr. C. J\ Walcolt revised this species in connection with 

 new material which he had collected, and i^ave his opinion in favour of 

 ]ii Hinds's determination.' 



In 1S92 Dr. J. C. Muhery de.strihed a fauna from a Ijlock of Cam- 

 brian sandstone collected by Dr. N. O. Hoist on the island of Œland in 

 Sweden In this fauna was a fossil which resembled the supposed oper- 

 culum of llyolithelius, and which Dr. Mobert; referred to the genus Dis- 

 cinella of Hall. This fossil was found to be very abundant, bnt any 

 object that could be taken for the tube of Hyolilhellus, was quite rare. 

 Hence Moberg concluded that the "operculum" and the tube of Hyo- 

 lithelius did not belong together, and that Ilall was right in referring the 

 so called operculum to a Brachiopodous genus, viz., Discinelhi.^ 



A year later Dr. Gerhard Holm had occasion to consider the stand- 

 ing of Hyolithelius in connection with his extensive memoir on the Swedish 

 Cambrian-Silurian llyolithida' and Conulariida". He also rejects H^'o- 

 litlx'llus from among the H^olithidie.stating that thename was based chiefly 

 on a genus previously described by Hall as Diseinella. He adds : "this" 

 genu.s is connected by Billings and Wald.tt with .some shining reed-shaped 

 objects whose nature is hard lo determine, but which probably belong to 

 sponges.^ Holm therefore rejects the genus Hyolithelius altogethei-. 



The collections made in Newfoundland favour the conclusion of Dr. 

 Moberg, viz., that the lods. and Diseinella do not belong together for 

 while long slender rod like bodies are plentiful in the Upper Etcheminian 

 limestone of Smith. Sound, no object resembling Hall's Diseinella was 

 ob.served. 



The author could not, however, satisf}?" himself that the slender rod- 

 like bodies .so common in this limestone were connected with a Hyolithoid 

 shell as large as that described by Billings ; it seemed rather that they 

 only attained a certain size, and that the much less numerous fragments 

 of larger size were portions of shells of Orthotheca. If, however, the 

 supposed operculum be i-emoved to atiother class of animals, and the 

 largei- fragments be also eliminated, there still remains a definite appli- 

 cation of the name Hyolithelius to a portion of the objects for which it 

 was u.sed by Billings, namel}' the slender shining rods that are so plen- 

 tiful in the limestone and stand at various angles in the calcareous paste. 



> U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 30, p. 142. 

 « Geol. fiiren. i Stockholm, Fiirhandl Bd. 14, Hft. 2. 



' They lire too lurne, even the .smaller tubes, to be spicules of sponges, and their 

 shell is thin. 



