1865.] WOODS ATJSTEALIAK TEETIAEIES. 393 



found at Mount Grambier. In the latter strata corals never occur, 

 but at Hamilton they are almost as common as Bryozoa, The beds 

 of the last-mentioned place instead of being a limestone-paste are 

 loose soft clays, and do not appear to have been deposited in anything 

 like a deep sea. Species are common to both deposits, but not by 

 any means all of each. Terehratula comj)ta, Sow., Pecten coarctatus, 

 Goldf, are the commonest fossils at Mount Gambler, but I have not 

 been able to find them at Hamilton. The species of Echinidce are dif- 

 ferent and the Bryozoa have a separate character, but the latter fea- 

 ture will be spoken of by and by. 



It has been objected to me that the differences between the beds 

 are not greater than might be expected in localities at least 90 miles 

 apart, supposing Hamilton to have been the shore of an island, and 

 Mount Gambler deep sea at the time ; but the following reasons are 

 directly against such an explanation. The Mount Gambler limestone 

 preserves its character for a distance of more than 100 miles in a 

 northerly direction, and 60 miles in a north-easterly direction. 

 Wherever it is found in that interval it can be easily recognized, not 

 a fossil is altered, and in every respect it is still like a deep-sea 

 deposit. On the other hand the distinctive features of the Hamilton 

 beds can be identified at Geelong, which is 120 miles to the south- 

 east, or at Harrow, which is 60 miles to the north-west. The strata 

 are distinguishable not only by the fossils but by the character of 

 the clays. I may add also that the two formations have been seen 

 by me within 10 miles of each other, that is to say, near the Wannon 

 River, and I think no one could possibly mistake one for the other. 



It may be asked, then, if the formations are distinct, which is the 

 more modern ? I think the Mount Gambler limestone. It possesses a 

 great many more recent Bryozoa, and Dr. Busk has already expressed 

 his opinion that the fossil contents show considerable analogy with 

 the Lower Crag of England. This may, however, be too modern a 

 date for this formation, which I have always regarded as identical 

 with the well-known Murray Eiver beds. I have so many strong- 

 reasons for believing the two deposits to be continuous, that I fancy 

 a better acquaintance with the fossil contents will show them to be 

 more modern than the Hamilton beds. The Murray River beds may 

 be passage-beds between the Mount Gambler and the Hamilton 

 strata. Indeed I have some reason for thinking that there are two 

 deposits at Murray River ; at least very different sets of fossils are 

 collected from the River near Lake Alexandrina, and from the more 

 northerly portions, such as the overland corner, and both are different 

 from what we find at Mount Gambler. 



Bryozoa of the Hamilton Beds. — In pointing out as I have done 

 the diff'erence between the two deposits at Hamilton and Mount 

 Gambler, I have, reserved any remarks on the specific characters of 

 the Bryozoa until now. In the first place it may be stated that in 

 one respect the Bryozoa of both deposits resemble each other, and 

 that is in the absence of those forms, such as CatenicelUdce, Mempea, 

 Dimeto])ia, &c,, which give to the recent genera of the Australian 

 seas so peculiar a character. It certainly may be objected that the 

 horny joints between each cell would render them more liable to 



