LOWER CRETACEOUS FOSSILS — ETHERIDGE. 137 



side ; the others are common to all our larger Crioceri at some 

 period of tbeir growth. Moore could have told us whether or 

 or no these large tubercles occur on each costa, or on alternate 

 costse, or the tubercle-bearing costa? separated by many or few 

 undecorated ribs, all important points in the separation of our 

 species, as will be seen later. Again, nothing definite is said of 

 the relative positions of these tubercles, whether abdominal, 

 lateral, or supra-dorsal. 



I certainly laboured under the impression I knew C. australe, 

 and have so named specimens ; now, however, I can only regard 

 such determinations as hasty generalisations. If Moore's species 

 is to be retained and distinguished by possessing two rows of 

 tubercles on each side the middle line of the venter in the gerontic 

 condition, then we are left with man}' non-tuberculate specimens 

 in a younger stage of growth that must remain, from their 

 imperfect condition, nameless. During my researches in Austra- 

 lian Cretaceous Palaeontology, I have never met with a large 

 Crioceras possessing two such rows of tubercles in the aged 

 condition of the coil. 



Moore said of his species — "shell very large." We certainly 

 do possess a huge so-called Crioceras, or perhaps even two, in our 

 Cretaceous beds. Mr. Felix Ratte figured' 1 about one-half of a 

 shell ascribed to C. australe, the perfect diameter of which would 

 have been about four feet, and so far as the state of preservation 

 discloses, non-tuberculate. 



The late Dr. W. Waagen ascribed to this species a large Indian 

 Cretaceous shell 4 without any trace of the two rows of tubercles 

 on the more adult whorls, but, on the other hand, with fasciculate 

 costae and two rows of large tubercles on the younger, or inner 

 whorls ; this was a direct departure from Moore's description. 

 I committed a further mistake by including 5 a shell of fine 

 growth in C. australe, apparently entirely devoid of tubercular 

 ornamentation. 



Under these circumstances, viz., the incompleteness of Moore's 

 description; the loss of his type-specimen; and the different 

 interpretation put on the meaning of the name by Messrs. Ratte, 

 Waagen, myself, and collectors in general, 1 am induced to 

 abandon the name as the most direct way out of a serious difficulty. 



3 Ratte -Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S.Wales, (2), i. 1SS6, pl.ii. 



4 Waagen — Jurassic Fauna of Kutch (Pal. Ind.), Ceph., 1875, i., No. 4, 

 p. 246, pi. lx., rigs. 1 a-c. 



5 Etheridge— Geol. Pal. Q'land, etc., 1892, pi. xxxi., f. 1. 



