398 G. B. Pritchard: 



1908. Linthia antiaustralis, Chapman. Proc. Roy. Soc. 

 Vic, vol. xxii., n.s., pt. 2, pp. 215, 216, plate 

 xix., f. 1, 2, :3. 



Ohservations. — This sjiecies had not been recognised as occur- 

 ring in Victoria until a recent publication by Mr. Chapman, 

 when Curlewis, near Geelong, is given as its locality, though 

 the specimen was apparently collected by Mr. Daintree as early 

 as 1861. Professor Tate's original particulars concerning this 

 species are of the most meagre description, and failing a close 

 and critical comparison, either with the type, or with Linthias 

 of similar dimensions from the type locality, it seems to me 

 well nigh impossible to make a certain identification. Pro- 

 fessor T'a^e gives no figure of this species, but gives the dimen- 

 sions as : Diameters of the base 60 mm. and 50 mm., and 

 height 40 mm,. Mr. Chapman figures the Curlewis specimen 

 without any further descriptive particulars or dimensions, but 

 notes in his explanation of the plate that the figures are natural 

 size. 



Figure 1 measures in length, 44 mm. ; height, 27 mm. Figure 

 2, length, 42 mm. : width, .37 mm. Figure 3, length, 45.5 mm. ; 

 width, 39 mm. 



These figures represent the ])rofile, the dorsal view, and the 

 ventral view respectively, but do not appear to show a veiy 

 accurate agreement, and hardly seem close enough to Tate's 

 particulars to admit of absolute certainty in the matter of this 

 identification. With discrepancies of this kind and poor repro- 

 duction, it is little wonder that photographic reproduction of 

 echinoids is strongly objected to in certain quarters. 



I am cjuite aware that it is no easy matter to get good accu- 

 rate photographs, and then again to follow that up by equally 

 good reproduction ; but at any rate every precaution should be 

 taken to start well. For the sake of argument, suppose that 

 this Curlewis echinoid does not prove to be Tate's Murray Clitfs 

 species, then, what have we got? First a very poor original 

 description, then figures which do not represent it, and of 

 course many workers would be likely to look at the figures first, 

 and we have a highly interesting position for a young student. 



Such difficulties do present themselves occasionally, but surely 

 it should be our very best endeavour to avoid the possibility of 

 such confusion for the sake of subsequent investigators. 



