13 
SALENIA TERTIARIA, TZate. 
Pleurosalenia tertiaria, Pomel, Classification method, p. 94,. 
1883. 
Salenia tertiaria, Bittner, op. cit., t.1, figs. 6 to 7, p. 333. 
PsAMMECHINUS WoopsI, Laube. 
Id., Bittner, op. cit., t. 1, fig. 1, p. 334 ; and var. fasciger, t. 1, 
fig. 2, p. 336. 
Psammechinus humilior, Bittner, op. cit., t. 1, fig. 3, p. 337. 
Laube’s species is very variable in shape and in the density of 
the granular ornamentation, particularly on the interambulacral 
plates. Bittner’s P. hwmilior is a large depressed form, and the 
most commonly occurring. P. Woodsi, var. fasciger, Bittner, 
differs by the slight tumidulosity of the interambulacral areas, 
but this character is also associated with depressed tests, like 
those of P. humilior, as well as with the conic shapes such as 
Bittner figures. All these occur in the River Murray Cliffs. 
The species is represented in the Aldinga Cliffs also by the 
humilior-form which graduates into an extreme state, in which 
the secondary granulation is almost obliterated. It would be 
quite possible to select half-a-dozen specimens to which as many 
distinctive names could be applied. 
PARADOXECHINUS Novus, Laube. 
Coptechinus lineatus, Bittner, op. cit., t. J, fig. 4, p. 338. 
Ortholophus lineatus, Duncan. 
Coptechinus pulchellus, Bittner, op. cit., t. 1, fig. 5, p. 342. 
Paradoxechinus novus, Bittner, op. cit., t. 4, fig. 4, p. 344.. 
I have always been dubious as to the distinctiveness of 
Ortholophus lineatus, Duncan, from Paradoxechinus novus, Laube ; 
but I had reserved an expression of opinion till I had an 
opportunity of examining an example of Duncan’s species col- 
lected at the locality of his type. Bittner’s interpretation of 
the characters of Ortholophus lineatus leaves, however, no doubt, 
I think, as to the identity of the two. It is noteworthy that 
Duncan regards Coptechinus as a synonym with Paradoxechinus, 
whilst Bittner makes Duncan’s genus Ortholophus synonymiec with 
Coptechinus, but places Paradoxechinus independently. Duncan 
in his classificatory arrangement of the echinoidal genera removes 
Paradoxechinus far from Psammechinus ; but my own observa- 
tions on our Eocene species of the two genera induce me to bring 
them into very close relationship. 
As the result of an examination of many scores of specimens, 
collected at the same locality and horizon, of what I recognise 
as P. novus, including those obtained from the same place as 
Laube’s type, I find that the test varies from low-depressed to 
