I. Average of fifteen analyses of Tinguaite after Daly, Igneous Bocks, 1914, 



p. 35. 

 II. Ulrichite (Camptonitic tinguaite). Dunedin, New Zealand. P. Marshall, 

 Q.J.G.S., lxii, p. 397, 1906. 



III. Nepheline monchiguite. 20 kilometres north-east of Senza do Itombe, 



Angola. Arthur Holmes, analyst. 



IV. Average of sixteen analyses of Olivi?ie monchiguite, after Daly, Igneous 



Bocks, 1914, p. 36. 



V. Olivine monchiguite. Cabo Frio, Brazil. Hunter and Bosenbusch, 



Min. pet. Mitth., xi, p. 445, 1890. M. Hunter, analyst. 

 VI. Average of six analyses of Augitite, after Daly, Igneous Bocks, 1914, p. 30. 

 (To be concluded in our next number.) 



NOTICES OF MEMOIRS. 



A Discussion upon the Age op the Lower Tertiary Marine 



Bocks of Australia. 1 



By B. Bullen Newton, F.G.S. 



I^HE author referred briefly to the valuable palseontological work 

 on the Australian Tertiaries carried out by such prominent 

 authors as M'Coy, Ralph Tate, Dennant, Hall, Pritchard, etc., the 

 majority of whom favoured an Eocene age for the Lower Tertiary 

 deposits of Australia. The late G. F. Harris doubted the existence 

 of such a formation, whilst M. Cossmann could see no relationships 

 among the Lower Tertiary Opisthobranchs from Australia with 

 Eocene forms from Europe. 



Mr. F. Chapman, Palaeontologist of the Melbourne Museum, has 

 studied this subject, and proves very conclusively that those beds 

 hitherto regarded as Eocene belong to the Miocene period — a view 



1 From Beports of the Eighty-fourth Meeting British Association for the 

 Advancement of Science, Australia, 1914, published 1915, p. 375. 



