BY R. ETHERIDGE^ JUNR., AND JOHN MITCHELL. 651 



several pygidia and portion of a cephalic shield from Bombala. 

 These were referred to Encrivnirns pnucfafiis^ but now, from an 

 extended knowledge of Australian Encrinurids, we have reason 

 to doubt the accuracy of this determination. The figured ex- 

 amples of pygidia, judging by the outlines, may be those of E. 

 rothwelUe, nobis, but, in connection with those figures, an admis- 

 sion of carelessness must be made. The illustrations in question 

 show a continuously annulated axis, whereas, in the text, a 

 centrally unsegmented axis is described. The latter is probably 

 correct; but under the circumstances is practically of no value. 



The only other descriptions of members of this family we are 

 acquainted with from New South Wales, are those of Encrinurus 

 tnitchelli and E. boioninyensis by Mr. A. F. Foerste,'^ of the 

 Denison University, Granville, Ohio, from material supplied by 

 one of us. This was of poor preservation, but Foerste's descrip- 

 tions render it quite easy to recognise the species proposed by 

 him. 



It will save repetition if we now proceed to make a few critical 

 remarks on these organic remains, rather than with the descrip- 

 tions of the species it is our intention to describe later. 



Of Encrimvrus australis, Salter, nothing is known, and, in 

 accordance with a remark already made, is dismissed from further 

 consideration. 



E. punctatus, Briinnich, a fossil highly typical of the Wenlock 

 division of the Upper Silurian, notwithstanding the very exten- 

 sive series of Eyicrmuri that have passed through our hands, we 

 have never seen. Both the cephalon, in the possession of genal 

 spines, and the pygidium in that of a mucro or telson, are so con- 

 spicuous, it is hardly possible we would have neglected to notice 

 them had they come under our review. In this instance, as in 

 some others throughout his work, w^ cannot divest our minds of 

 the suspicion that De Koninck, in his remarks on this trilobite, 

 did not describe the Australian fossil at all, but simply indicated 

 the principal features of E. punctatus, leaving it to be inferred 



•Foerste, Bull. Sci. Lab. Denison Univ., 1888, iii., Pt. 2, pp. 121-126, 

 PI. xiii., figs. 2, 3, 7, 20. 



