282 



list. The same author rejects S. rentricosus as Australian, 

 whereas Gray's type is from West Australia, and the species is 

 known from Southern Australian waters. 



Professor Hutton, op. cit., describes a Schizaster from the 

 Oamaru formation under the name of S. exoJetus. The type- 

 specimen is before me, it is an imperfect cast, apparently of a 

 Schizaster, and may be identical with the species from the River 

 Murray Cliffs. Tlie uncertainty of the identification makes it 

 desirable to attach a different name to our fossil. 



Eupatagus deeipiens, -vyec. nor. 



Synonyms. — Pericosimts compressus, Gregory, Geol. Mag., 1890, 

 t. 14, fig. 1, p. 485 (now M eyed aster compressus, Duncan; non 

 Pericosmus compressns^ McCoy). 



There cannot be a doubt that Meyalister was founded on a 

 Pericosmus of which the fascioles had been obliterated, this is not 

 an unusual circumstance with specimens of P. compressus 

 obtained from the raggy limestones at Mannum, on the River 

 Murray, whilst, on the otlier hand, specimens of the same species 

 from the soft calciferous sandstone near Blanchetown, 60 miles 

 higher up the river, have the characteristic fascioles of the genus, 

 well-displayed, such as are illustrated by McCoy in his figures 

 of the species. P. compressus, McCoy, and ^legalaster 

 compressus, Duncan, are certainly the same species. Gregory 

 considers, however, the two to be distinct, and refers to Duncan's 

 species a fossil from the Aldinga Cliffs, whilst the Munvavian 

 species he calls P. JlcCoyi. He has, however, overlooked the 

 fact that Duncan's type came from the Murray Cliffs. In otlier 

 words, Pericosmus compressus of Gregory does not represent the 

 Murravian fossil ; indeed, it is generically different, being a 

 Eupatagus. I have been long familiar with the species, which is 

 represented in the University Museum by numerous well-pre- 

 served examples, and propose for it the name as cited above. 



The presence of tubercles on the abactinal surface, though 

 small for the genus, is alone sufficient to afford a clue to its right 

 generic location. The excellent drawing and comyjarative charac- 

 ters given by Mr. Gregory make it unnecessary to furnish a 

 formal diagnosis of the species. Its shape and the paucity and 

 smallness of the abactinal tubercles afford the leading distinguish- 

 ing characters of this large species of Eupatagus. 



