122 Dr. P. L. Sclater on the Species of the Genus Tribonyx. 
of which species Mr. Seeley says it is only a variety. Pholas 
Dallasii (mihi) appears to me to be nearly allied to D’Orbigny’s 
P. Cornueliana ; and both will, of course, take their place in the 
subgenus Pholadidea, as indicated by Mr. Seeley. 
Finally, Mr. Seeley says: “ The age of the beds is a difficult 
problem, and not one that can be solved by an appeal to fossils, 
or mineral character, or superposition.” Unfortunately, Mr. 
Seeley does not inform us how the problem is to be solved, 
unless he wishes us to receive his hypotheses without requiring 
any proof. If I am honoured by a reply to my remarks, I may 
remind Mr. Seeley that, although the opinion of an eminent 
geologist must have great weight, yet it is by no means weakened 
by an appeal to facts, and that it is hardly fair to adduce in 
support of his arguments results said to be detailed in a book 
still unpublished, or in papers which have not yet appeared in 
print *, 
XVIII.— Note on the Species of the Genus Tribonyx. By P. L. 
Scrater, M.A., Ph.D., F.R.S., Secretary to the Zoological 
Society of London. 
In endeavouring to ascertain the correct scientific name of a 
fine specimen of a Ralloid bird of the genus Tribonyz, from 
Western Australia, which has lately been added to the Society’s 
Collection, I have discovered that there seems to have been some 
little confusion between two of the species of this genus, which 
I take the opportunity of setting right. 
Upon turning to Mr. Gould’s ‘ Birds of Australia,’ to which one 
naturally refers for the determination of an Australian bird, it 
is at once apparent that the Society’s specimen is not the bird 
figured there as Tribonyx Mortieri, beg distinguishable by its 
larger size and the distinct white stripes on the wings, although 
otherwise much resembling it. But, in his original description 
of Tribonyx Mortieri, Du Bus most clearly describes these 
* Several examples of this citation of unpublished materials occur in 
Mr. Seeley’s paper. I may refer more particularly to that which, as he 
says, was read on May 27th, 1867, before the Cambridge Philosophical 
Society, on a deposit near Upware. I was present on that occasion, and 
heard Mr. Seeley’s remarks, with many of which, however, I could not 
concur, as I stated at the time. Mr. Seeley’s so-called paper consisted 
apparently of an extempore exposition of his views. No list of fossils was 
given by him; and the whole paper was quite unworthy of an attempt to 
revolutionize the geological classification of the Upper Jurassic and Lower 
Cretaceous beds, in support of which it is cited in the last Number of the 
‘Annals.’ I had already communicated (May 7th, 1867) a short paper on 
the Upware deposit to the Yorkshire Philosophical Society : this is printed 
in the ‘ Geological Magazine’ for July. 
