11 
appearance to be identical with C. canadensis; and thus, despite the differ- 
ence in size of coralla and corallites and in “ aspect ” (some material from 
the Richmond of America presents the same appearance as the alleged 
Black River C. canadensis), it must be concluded that C. huronensis and 
C. canadensis are identical. This was the opinion of Whiteaves also (1897, 
158). Lambe (1899, 43) was “convinced that C. canadensis and C. 
huronensis cannot be retained as distinct species.” Foerste (1916, 295, 
and 1924), as noted on a previous page, revived the question of the dis- 
tinctness of these two species, but his suggested method for distinguishing 
them breaks down on a survey of many specimens showing different 
preservation. 
This identity established, the trivial name canadensis must prevail, 
since it is the first species described in Billings’ paper. C. huronensis, 
therefore, is a synonym of C. canadensis and is obsolete. 
With regard to Columnopora cribrijorrnis Nicholson 1874, which has 
already been shown to be congeneric with Calapoecia, there is no doubt 
at all from examination of thin sections of many specimens (8ee above) 
that it is conspecific with C. canadensis; a conclusion that Nicholson (1889, 
317-8) himself eventually reached. Whiteaves (1897', 158) was convinced 
that Columnopora cribrijorrnis Nicholson was identical with Calapoecia 
huronensis and quoted a letter from Nicholson, who had examined speci- 
mens. “ My Columnopora cribrijorrnis is identical, both generic ally and 
specifically, with Calapoecia huronensis, Billings .... It is quite probable 
that Calapoecia canadensis Billings is also the same as C. huronensis, but, 
the specimens being silicified in the former, I am not sure of this.” Thus 
C. cribrijorrnis should have passed out of literature in 1897. 
It seems to have been tacitly assumed that Houghtonia huronica 
Rominger (1876) was conspecific with C. canadensis. It has been shown 
above that it is congeneric. Whiteaves (1897) and Lambe (1899) both 
include it in their synonymy of this species. But from the appearance 
of the surface in Rominger’s figure 4, Plate III, where in parts definite 
“ costse ” can be seen, whereas elsewhere the corallites are polygonal and in 
contact, it appears to combine equally the characters of C. canadensis 
and C. canadensis var. anticostiensis, presently to be described, and, there- 
fore, falls into the transition variety ungava (auct.). The species Columno- 
pora rayi Davis (1887) will be examined under the head of “ Spurious and 
Doubtful Species,” but although the species is not valid, it is suggested 
there that all the figured specimens except perhaps figure 1, Plate 5, might 
be referred to the present species. It is also suggested under the same 
heading that some of Whitfield’s (1900) Calapoecia borealis specimens 
might be referred to C. canadensis. 
Twenhofel’s (1928) C. anticostiensis Billings is included in parte 
because it is apparent from his description (129-130) that the species is 
present on Anticosti island, and the writer has examined a specimen from 
that locality which certainly is referable to C. canadensis. 
