652 SILURIAN TRILOBITES OF NEW SOUTH WALES, V., 



that the Austrahan fossil exhibited the same characters. Indeed, 

 it seems to us that his opening paragraph can have no other 

 construction put upon it. He said: — "Cette espece a ete si bien 

 decrite et figuree par M. Fletcher et par Salter, que je puis me 

 dispenser d'entrer dans le detail des caracteres qui la distinguent 

 et dont le principal et le plus facile a reconnaitre, consiste . . .""^ 

 but not a word as to which of these characters were visible on 

 the Australian specimen. De Koninck's E. punctatus may be the 

 equivalent of E. mifchplli, Foerste. As to De Koninck's qualified 

 identification of Cr-umus hohfimicus, Barr., but which he did not 

 figure, we can only say we have no evidence of a Cromus in Aus. 

 tralian rocks, but that in itself cannot be accepted as a proof of 

 non-occurrence. De Koninck's remark " Elle est garnie de chaque 

 cote de quatre sillons etroits," if it be an actual description of 

 the Australian fossil, so completely accords with the principal 

 characters of Cromus, that we must accept the determination in 

 the meantime. Mr. Foerste regarded his E. mifcJiplli and C. bohe- 

 mic.us, De Koninck, as "distinct although clearly related." The 

 identification of De Koninck's two remaining species is rendered 

 very uncertain by an unfortunate difference between his descrip- 

 tion in the text, and the figure-references in the explanation of 

 Plate i. As Encrinurus barrand^i were described a cephalon 

 and a pygidium, and the former was figured under its name, f the 

 latter not so. Several specimens were found at Yarralumla, but 

 how many cephalons or how many pygidia is not stated. What- 

 ever this may be, it is not E. mifchdli, Foerste. As Crormis 

 murchisoni were included two cephalons, i and a pygidium referred 

 to in the explanation of Plate i.,>^ but there is no description of, 

 nor reference to this tail in the text. 



In the first place, the structure of neither of the glabella? of 

 these cephalic shields accords with Barrande's definition of 

 Cromus. One (Fig.9«) displays no trace of the four pairs of 



* De Koninck, Loc. cit., p. 50. 



fDe Koninck, Loc. cit., PI. i., fig. 8. 



t De Koninck, Loc. cit., PI. i., figs. 9 and 9a. 



§ De Koninck, Loc. cit., PI. i., fig.9/>. 



