32 
elusions as to the age of the specimens, including Calapoecias, brought back 
from cape Harrison, Princess Marie bay, Ellesmere island, cannot be re- 
garded as necessarily correct. “ These species would indicate a geological 
horizon about the same as that of the New York Niagara or Clinton group,” 
he writes ; but an examination of his evidence shows how slender it is. His 
material, presumably collected from scree, consists of a Helitocoma or 
Ophileta. “ The species is evidently of float material, and consequently of 
little or no value geologically. The remainder of the material consists of 
corals, partially silicified, in limetsone, and one very good example of a 
Receptaculites, resembling R. oweni Hall,” but which he describes as a new 
species. All the corals are made into new species. In fact there is not a 
single specimen that can be compared directly with any of a known fauna. 
Schei (1903, 2-3) found that the limestone of Norman Lockyer island was 
also present at cape Harrison. 
It has been indicated above that the Norman Lockyer Island limestone 
might quite probably be of post-Trenton age. Schei’s recognition of the 
same beds at cape Harrison makes it seem far from unlikely that Whit- 
field's specimens came from the same horizon. Holtedahl (1913, 12), how- 
ever, accepts Whitfield’s evidence of age and refers the fossils, therefore, 
to the higher beds of cape Harrison. To the present writer this seems 
unnecessary, especially since Whitfield’s descriptions are inadequate. 
Etheridge’s (1878) Sarcinula organum, shown above to be Calapoecia 
canadensis var. anticostiensis forma arctica, also came from Ellesmere is- 
land. It w^as collected at cape Hilgard, which lies on the north shore of the 
entrance of Dobbin bay. Fielden and De Ranee (1878, 558) write: “An 
anticlinal axis ranges northeast through cape Hilyard, along which more 
ancient Silurians appear to be exposed, as Mr. Etheridge has determined 
some of the fossils from this locality, and others in the neighbourhood, to 
belong to Lower Silurian types, as Maclurea magna, Receptaculites occiden- 
talis, R. arctica.'^ Troedsson (1928, 143) provisionally regards the R, occi- 
dentalis and R. arctica Etheridge as the same. Thus AVhitfield’s R. pearyi 
(1900, 19) from Princess Marie bay, and alluded to above, is identified with 
Etheridge’s specimens. Troedsson described examples of this species from 
the Cape Calhoun beds (Richmond, &ee Koch 1929, 38), but he makes it 
plain that no examples from the Gonioceras Bay limestone (Black River) 
are included. The latter horizon is included in the Receptaculites lime- 
stone of Koch (1929, 28). The Maclurea magna Lesueur was identified by 
Etheridge apparently from the figures and descriptions of Lesueur (1818), 
Hall (1847), and M’Coy (1850-1). This form is now known as Mac- 
lurites magnus (Bassler 1915, 779) and is Chazyan.2 But correlation on 
the other identifications of gasteropoda is by no means definite, as was 
pointed out by Foerste (1928, 30) in the case of the “Maclurea magna” 
from the Red River formation, Manitoba. Thus, if the evidence of the 
Receptaculites alone is taken, the Cape Hilgard beds would appear to be 
^ “ Cape Hilyard ” mufit be cape Hilgard. I have not been able yet to re-examine 
Etheridge’s fanna but intend to do so because a revision of their nomenclature, in 
the light of more recent work, might provide additional stratigraphical knowledge with 
regard to this relatively little-known area. 
2 But Ulrich oonaiders Etheridge’s M. magna as possibly related to the Red River 
Maclurina magna (Richmond) (Foerste 1928). 
