358 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 



2. Specimen from Poi't Cainpljell — Fig. 2. 



Breadtli of Carapace (as above) 



Length of antero-lateral spine 



Breadth of front ----- 



Length of meros of cheliped - - - 



Length of hand ----- 



Greatest breadth of liand 



Length of mobile linger - - - - 



3. Specimen from Port Campbell — Fig. 4. 



Hand, length - . - - . 



Length of 3rd ambulatory leg (imperfect) 



Measurements taken from White's original figure of O. mac- 

 gillivrayi in the way described above, for comparison. 



Length ------- 20 mm. 



Breadth - - - - - - 42 „ 



Posterior margin - - - - - 32 ., 



Mr. Cresswell's description says that the eye-stalks are short. 

 This would be so much at variance with the other characters 

 of the fossil that attention was naturally directed to it. None 

 of my specimens threw light on the point, and Mr. Cresswell 

 could not find the specimen on which he founded the statement. 

 However, he kindly broke one of the nodules in which his 

 specimens are preserved, and very fortunately the greater part 

 of an eye-stalk was displayed. It is broken off distally, but 

 the part that remains i*eaches as far as the base of the antero- 

 lateral spine, and I have figured it (Fig. 3). None of my 

 specimens show the length of the ambulatory legs, but Mr. 

 Cresswell says that the second pair is the longest, and that all 

 four pairs end in a pointed toe. I have not been able to check 

 these statements. One of my specimens, however, shows that 

 the legs reach out beyond the end of the merus of the cheliped. 



I may say that Mr. Cresswell's description, though not 

 couched in strict scientific language, is quite intelligible, and 

 enabled me to suspect the identity of my specimens before I 

 had the opportunity of comparing them with his. He referred 

 his species to the correct family, but the inac-cessibility of the 

 necessary literature prevented his recognition of the real genus. 



