176 PROCEEDINGS OF SECTION C. 
(Kitchin, 00). The reviewer says—‘ A superficia! glance 
at the plates would lead one to suppose that many British 
species of the Inferior Colite and Great Oolite Brachiopoda 
were represented . . . . bat, although there are forms 
which appear to show affinity with British species belonging 
to different Jurassic divisions, yet such forms cecur together 
in Cutch strata, and correlation becomes impossible when 
forms of one horizon suggest Bajocian, Bathonian, and Cal- 
lovian ages.” 
There do not appear to be many instances of definite 
statements of the same character by Australian Paleontoio- 
gists, and I must confine myself to the few records I have 
been able to find. 
Dr. R. L. Jack.(Jack and Etheridge, '92, p. 406) speaks 
with no uncertain voice. He says—‘‘ It is remarkable that 
almost every Paleontologist who has worked hitherto: on 
Queensland material has come to the conclusion that fossils 
from different horizons have been maxed up, and this ex- 
planation has appeared specially necessary in the case of 
the fossils from the Rolling Downs [Lower Cretaceous]. 
On the oiher hand, my own explorations have satisfied me 
that Queensland fel are not more liable to this kind of 
accident than those of other countries; that the mixing-up, 
which has caused so much annoyance te Palzontologists, has 
been perpetrated by Nature herself . . . . the Rolling 
Downs formation contains a marine (and occasionally fresh- 
water) fauna, representing the migration of many species 
which in Europe date from the Rhetic to Cretaceous.” 
In the New South Wales Permo-Carboniferous de Kon- 
inck recorded a species of Paleaster (/’. clarkei), a Silurian 
and Carboniferous genus. But Etheridge (Etheridge, 99, 
p. 70) instituted a new sub-genus, Monaster, for its recep- 
tion; and Gregory (Gregory, 99, p. 345) raised it to generic 
rank, and elsewhere (Gregory, 00, p. 250) referred the genus 
mly doubifully to the Palesterine, which range from Cam- 
srian to Devonian Poterioverinus also occurs in the same 
beds, being elsewhere not more recent than Carboniferous, 
and Plnalocrinus has a similar range. 
Evidence of transgression in the case of graptolites is 
somewhat stronger, and is more clearly seen, as the collect- 
ing im a part of our Lower Seat has been done zonally. 
I have elsewhere shown (Hall, 99, i, p. 175) that on the 
same slabs of rock at Lancefield we find Bryograptus and 
Clonograptus teneilus, which in Europe are exclusively 
Cambrian, associated with Didymograptus, Tetragraptus, 
Clonograptus flexilis, C. rigidus, Phyliograpius, and two 
\ 
