18 
DOUBTFUL AND SPURIOUS SPECIES 
“ Columnopora rayi” Davis 1887 
Davis' Kentucky Fossil Corals, part 2, comprising plates and their 
descriptions, was copyrighted in 1887 (the title page is dated 1885) ; but 
no text was ever published. There Davis describes figures 1 and 3 of 
Plate 5 and figure 1 of Plate 6 as “ Columnopora rayi nov. sp. Hudson 
River Group.” These specimens came from Nelson county and were in 
that author’s collection. A species is valid, even if it is described only 
by a figure or plate, provided that it can be seen there to differ from 
previously described species. In Davis’ figures there is no feature that 
distinguishes Col. rayi from Calapoecia already in literature. All except 
figure 1 of Plate 5 cannot be soen to differ from C. canadensis Billings, 
and the single figure is probably an example of C. canadensis var. anti- 
costiensis, or, which is less likely, C. canadensis var. ungava auct. Davis’ 
Columnopora rayi, therefore, is a nomen nudum, in spite of the fact that 
he figures on the same page specimens of Columnopora cribrijormis 
Nicholson” (shown above to be C. canadensis Bill.), having the same 
locality and horizon and from which, no doubt, he intended to distinguish it. 
Calapoecia borealis Whitfield 1900, 20; Plate II, figures 3-7 
The writer has been unable to obtain types of this species. Certain 
authors have referred specimens to it, but none of them appears to have 
seen the types. The only description of the species since that of Whitfield 
is by Troedsson (1928), who refers to Whitfield’s figures and description 
but not to the original specimens. The present writer is unable to accept 
Troedsson’s interpretation of C. boi'ealis Whitfield. 
The identification of this species, suggested by Whitfield, with the 
Clisiophyllum sp. of Salter is impossible. The writer has examined and 
cut sections of this specimen (B.M. 90099) which is figured and described 
by Salter. It is ceriod and non-carinate and is best compared with 
“ ? Xylodes sp.” figured by Smith and Tremberth 1929, Plate VIII, figure 
1. It fulfils the diagnosis of Xylodes Lang and Smith 1927 (461-2). The 
most cursory glance at Whitfield’s figures shows that C. borealis has noth- 
ing in common with this specimen. Nor does his identification of this 
species with Heliolites macrostylus Hall (1852, 135) seem more probable. 
Hall’s figures (Plate 36A, figures 2a-2c-l-), although somewhat idealized, 
show twelve septa in all corallites and in one or two (figure 2a) the septa 
nearly reach the centre of the corallite. 
With regard to the mural pores, which according to Whitfield are 
“ more nearly quadrangular than round,” it has already been explained 
how their shape may vary according to the state of preservation. Whit- 
field’s remark that they “ present much the appearance of an open textile 
substance ” makes one wonder whether he is not describing a weathered 
surface where “ costae ” are crossing the diaphragms of the coenenchyme. 
This suggestion is supported by his figure 4, Plate II. The specimen of 
C. canadensis var. anticostiensis from Norman Lockyer island, a very 
short distance away from cape Harrison (the type locality of ‘‘ C. 
borealis”), described above, shows extremely clearly this appearance on 
