442 CARBONIFEROUS TRILOBITES OP AUSTRALIA, 



The writer is of the opinion that this species should still be 

 recognised. Its description is the first record of the genus in 

 Australian rocks. 



9. Gkiffithides skminiferus De Koninck (non Pliillips, 

 species) Foss. Pal. Nouv. Galles du Sud, 1877, Pt.3, p.348, t.24, 

 f.9, 9a. 



That this determination on the part of ])e Koninck was in- 

 correct, there is really no doubt. It is fully dealt with in the 

 observations on the relationship of Phi/lipsia collitisi to other 

 species, described further on. 



10. Gkiffithides seminifeuus var, austkalasica Etheridge, 

 Junr., Geol. and Pal. Queensland and New Guinea, 1892, p. 216, 

 PI. vii., fig. 14. 



The material used by Mr. Etheridge for his description of the 

 above is before me, and, after close examination of it, I am 

 doubtful of the correctness of Mr Etheridge's conclusions. The 

 pygidia, by which his conclusions were greatly influenced, have 

 each thirteen and eleven axial and pleural divisions respectively; 

 and, in this respect, agree with pygidia }>laced by me with his 

 P. woodwardi. All these pygidia agree in tlieir ornamentation. 

 As regards the cephalon associated on the specimen with these 

 pygidia, it does not appear to differ in any essential from two of 

 those included by Mr. Etheridge in his F. ivoodwardi, except 

 that, in the latter, the granulation has been worn off by weather- 

 ing. On the glabella of the former, it is true, no anterior or 

 ftiesial glabellar furrows are visible, but this glabella is a very 

 imperfect intaglio. If it should ultimately be shown that this 

 fossil is a good species, it will not, even then, be closely related 

 to Gr. semitiiferns, because it possesses supplementary basal 

 lobes, and the latter does not. This difference certainly places 

 them specifically apart. It may be stated that, so disposed was 

 I to the opinion that this was a separate species, that I had 

 written a description of it under a new name, but not being able 

 to discern any difference in the pygidia now under discussion, 

 and those I have placed with F. woodtvardi, I deferred final 

 judgment. 



