KONGL. SV. VET. AKADEMIKN.S HANDLINGAR. BAND 32. N:0 I. 25 



of oi'iginal specimens I am convinced that the genera Columnopora Nicholson, HoMglitoiiia 

 RoMiNGER and probaljly also Lyopora Nicholson & Ethekidge are identical with this 

 genus and consequently superfiuous. Zittel and Sakdeson have nuraerated it amongst 

 the Heliolitida^.^ I do not think that it belongs there in spite of some superficial simi- 

 larity. As it is pvovided with a perforated tlieca, with un nnstable number of septa, 

 twenty or nriore and less, and a quite different sort of coenenchyma, I cannot regard it 

 as one of the Heliolitida? according to ray conception of this family. It reaches from the 

 highest LoAver Silurian to the lowest beds of the Upper Silurian and has a very wide 

 geographical distribution from Canada and North America, England, Norway, Dalecarlia 

 and Gotland in Sweden, Esthonia to the raiddle Tunguska river in Sibiria. 



ColumnojJora, see Calapcecia. 



Cyrtopliyllum , Lindström, Silurische Korallen aus Nord-Russland und Sibirien in 

 Bihang till Svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl. Bd 6, N:o 18 p. 17, fig. 1—2. Sardeson 

 (Tabulaten page 276) has, inadvertently calling it Cyathophyllum, placed it with Plas- 

 mopora from which genus, as well as from all other Heliolitidai it is widely different 

 through its numerous, about förty septa, through ils peculiar and characteristic tabute. 

 I have placed it as nearest to Acervularia. The outlines of the polypierites are very 

 clear and defined and there is seldom nuich coenenchyma between them. 



Fistulipora. Concerning this, as well as other fossils, rather to be regarded as Bryo- 

 zoa, I have given some details below in treating of the affinities of Heliol. decipiens. 



Haimeophyllum Billings. Zuttel (Pala?ozoologie I, p. 213) enumerates this devonian 

 genus amongst the HeliolitidcP. On examination of specimens, which Bijllings himself 

 once sent me, I can not find the least to justify its attinity with Heliopora or Heliolites. 

 There is no coenenchyma, there are about förty septa and the thecaj are perforated by 

 oscula, like those of the Favositid*. The calicles are filled -with a dissepiment, like that 

 in the Gystiphyllid£e. 



The name of this genus ought not to be retained any longer as it is quite iden- 

 tical with Chonostegites M. Edw. & H., founded by them in 1850. Tlieir Ghon. Glappi 

 is indeed the same fossil as Haimeophyllum ordinatum Billings (first described 1859), 

 as I have learnt by comparing specimens of both. It is not likely that it is related to 

 Michelinia as some American authors think. 



Halysites. In a paper in Annals and Mag. Nat. Sciences 1876 I placed this 

 genus amongst the Heliolitidae on account of the similarity in structure as observed 

 in longitudinal sections. Further there is an apparent homology with the coenenchj^ma 

 through the intercalicinal tubes. But as the mode of growth of the Halysitge is so pecu- 

 liar, it may at present be left as a type for itself. 



Heliopora, Blainville. No other coral has been so often and so eagerly compared 

 with Heliolites as this and yet, I think, that a closer investigation will prove, that there 

 is very little of a real affinity between them. Too much stress, as to their differing, 



^ I myself also in a paper on the Tabulata in Ann. mag. N. Hist. 1876 vol. II p. 16 ranged this genus 

 with the Heliolitidae along with Thecostegites, Halysites and with some doubt Thecia. But further researches 

 have lead me to abandou this view. 



