33 
what is known at present as Richmond. Foerste (1928, 30) also thought 
it probable that Etheridge’s localities were in Richmond strata. 
Anticosti Island. “ C. anticostiensis ” (including C. canadensis) occurs 
in the English Head (2-4); Vaureal (1-4) (= Charleton) ; and Ellis Bay 
(4-7, 9) formations (Twenhofel 1928). 
Russian-Baltic Area. “C. canadensis” is recorded from FI, Lyckholm 
beds, and F2, Borkholm beds, of the island of Dago (Twenhofel 1916, 
296, 308, and Bassler 1911, 19, 36). Bassler originally correlated the Lower 
Lyckholm with early Trenton (1911, 9). Twenhofel showed later (1916), 
and Bassler agreed, that faunistically the Lyckholm and Borkholm beds 
are identical ; and further that the Borkholm is to be correlated with whole 
or part of the Ellis Bay formation of Anticosti; hence the Lyckholm repre- 
sents some part of the Vaureal (Charleton) and is equivalent to the upper 
part of the Richmond. The Borkholm beds have no representative in the 
interior of America (Twenhofel, 1916). 
Norway. Kiaer’s (1897, 39, 40) Calapoecias from the Mjos limestone 
(5b) were later (1930, 59) referred to Lyopora favosa. Those' from Ringer- 
ike (1897, 6-27) are from stage 5b. Dr. Strand tells me that according to 
opinion prevailing at present this formation is considered older than 5b. 
Stage 5b was finally considered by Kiaer (1930, 19) to be Silurian and is 
separated by a stratigraphic al break from 5a, thus giving an Ordovician- 
Silurian boundary (Strand 1933). Twenhofel (1928, 82) correlated stage 
5 of the Oslo region with the Ellis Bay and Vaureal formations of Anticosti. 
It is probable, then, that the Calapoecias occur at about the same horizon 
in Norway as they do in America. The C. canadensis recorded by Kiaer 
(1929) from the limestone and shale series of Upper Vikenes and Lim- 
buviken, Stord, seem also to be of this age; for the strata are correlated 
with the Gasteropod-limestone of Oslo and the Baltic Lyckholm beds. 
Sweden. Calapoecia is recorded from the Leptaena-limestone in 
Dalarne (Lindstrbm 1880, 36, 1888, 23; Kiaer 1897, 48), and according to 
Miss Warburg (in Kiaer 1930, 65) it comes from the Upper Leptaena-lime- 
stone. There has been considerable difference of opinion with regard to 
this limestone, which probably represents several horizons. 
Miss Warburg (1925, 412) considered the Upper Leptaena-limestone to 
be of the same age as the Brachiopod shales, the Klingkalk, the Keisley 
limestone (Ashgillian) , the Esthonia stage F, and Kiaer’s stage 5, which 
Kiaer (1897, 53) himself thought to be equivalent to the British Bala- 
Caradoc. The age, then, in Twenhofel’s (1928) correlation would be equi- 
valent to the Ellis Bay and Vaureal. But more recently Troedsson and 
RoswaU (1926, 456) write: “ Since the trilobites, received from the quarry 
at Kallholn, form the typical fauna of the “ Upper Leptaena limestone ” 
(Warburg) , the latter has to be classified as Silurian on account of the 
interstratified shale with Monograptus gregarius, Climacograptus, cf. torn- 
quisti, etc.” And later (Troedsson 1928, 181) “This necessitates also the 
including not only of the Norwegian stage 5b but also the Dalmanites 
shale in the Silurian, even if the latter is older than the Kallholn. The 
ostracod fauna of the Silurian Dalmanites beds is very similar to the 
Clinton ostracods of Maryland recently described by Ulrich and Bassler. 
11476-4 
