16 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 



Mr. J. E. Marr^ classes all the zones of Bryograptus as of 

 Tremadoc age, and in a letter he tells me that he considers the 

 genus to be confined to the Tremadoc. Mr. R. Etheridge, jun., 

 has already recorded Cambrian rocks from Victoria,'^ and his 

 locality, Heathcote, is due north of Lancefield and approximately 

 on the same strike, though the stratified palaeozoic rocks of the 

 two districts are separated from one another by the, presumably 

 intrusive, granite of the Baynton Range. Selwyii'^ says that 

 " Victorian palaeozoic physical geology in its broadest features may 

 be represented as consisting of a great . . . sinclinal trougli 

 of lower paheozoic (silurian) and older strata." I have previously 

 given reasons for considering the rocks of N.E. Victoria to be of 

 Upper Ordovician age.^ Our knowledge of the fauna of the 

 Paljieozoic rocks west of Ballarat is as complete a blank to-day as 

 it was when Selwyn wrote thirty years ago. The presence of 

 Cambrian rocks on the mer'idian of Melbourne shows the existence 

 of an axial line of elevation, with this peculiarity, that there is, 

 as far as our present limited observations go, a descent in the 

 exposed rocks as we pass northward. The recorded graptolites 

 from near Bulla are Upper Ordovician, those of Lancefield are 

 apparently of Tremadoc age, while, according to Mr. Etheridge, 

 the small outcrop at Heathcote is probably Middle Cambrian. 

 Whether this is due to the transverse folding which produced 

 our Dividing Range, and, perhaps, also the remarkable " pitch " 

 of our older rocks, is a question of great interest, but one which 

 must rest till more data are available. 



1 Science Progress, July, 1896, pp. 360-74. 



2 Proe. Roy. See* Vic. viii., (N.S.), 1895, p. .52. 

 « Vic. Iiiternat. Exhibit. Essays, 1867, p. 9. 



4 Proe. Roy. Soc. Vic, ix., (N.S.), 1896, p. 183. 



