3 
British Museum. Prom a study of these he is convinced that Columnopora 
Nicholson is congeneric with Calapoecia Billings; indeed, as will be shown 
below, it is cospecific with one of Billings’ species. But again the present 
writer differs on a count of septa: Nicholson (1874, 253) gives twenty- 
four as a maximum, but all of the species enumerated above have twenty, 
as seen in thin section. 
In 1879 Nicholson compared Columnopora with descriptions of Cala~ 
poecia Billings, but although seeing the similarity between C, canadensis 
and C. huronensis Bill, and Col. cribriformis^ was reluctant to go further 
than note it because of the “ entire distinctness ” of the third species, 
C. anticostiensis, which was the only one figured by Billings (the figure 
was published in 1866 in a later paper). Billings added a footnote in 1866 
(33) “ This species appears to be congeneric with Spring ophy Hum organum 
— Sarcinula organu7n." It is not, as will be shown. However, by 1889, 
Nicholson had seen some of Billings’ material. “An examination of the 
original specimens has clearly shown that the forms described by Billings 
under the name of Calapoecia are identical with those described by the 
present writer under the head of Columnopora, and the latter name must 
therefore be abandoned” (1899, 317-8). But he does not accept C. 
anticostiensis Bill, in the genus. Earlier, in 1897, Whiteaves published an 
extract from a letter he received from Nicholson stating the same con- 
clusion. 
Lambe revised the genus in 1899 and gives a detailed and extremely 
competent description. He evidently had examined many specimens. His 
conclusions will be considered in the discussion of species below. Lambe 
included the genera Columnopora Nicholson and Houghtonia Rominger 
as synonyms of Calapoecia. The genus Houghtonia was proposed by 
Rominger in 1876 for the reception of the species H. huronica; but in a 
footnote^ (18) that author says that this genus is identical with Columno- 
pora of Nicholson, which apparently he knew only from published descrip- 
tion. The present writer has not had the opportunity of examining 
Rominger’s material, but his figures and descriptions leave no doubt that 
he had the genus Calapoecia. Rominger notes (18) “ no free communica- 
tion between the contiguous tube walls.” If this were true the assignation 
of Houghtonia to Calapoecia would be most doubtful; but much of 
Rorainger’s material is silicified^ and this alone, as will be shown in 
another connexion, is sufficient to give the appearance of a dense wall, 
especially since no thin sections seem to have been cut. And further, 
Lindstrbm examined specimens of Calapoecia, Columnopora, and Hough- 
tonia, which were sent to him by their respective authors, and concluded 
that all were generically allied (1882, 12), a fact that he stated less fully 
in 1880 (36) in his Index of 1883 (7) and repeated in 1899 (24-5). 
In his papers of 1880, 1883, and 1889 Lindstrbm considered that the 
genus Lyopora should probably be included in Calapoecia. This genus 
1 Nicholson (1879, 161) writes: “Indeed, Dr. Rominger has himself admitted this 
identity in a note appended to a later edition of the same work (1877)”. It should be 
mentioned that this note appears in editions that show no evidence of being later than 
1876, the year of the original edition. 
® I have to thank Dr. Stanley Smith for information on the state of preservation of 
Rominger’s corals. 
