AUSTRALIAN CAINOZOIC ('TERTIARY) DEPOSITS. 69 



rhynchus, and Eupatagus gives a Nummulitic-of-Europe-and-India 

 fades to the fauna, whilst the Cretaceous aspect is presented by 

 G atopy gus, Holaster, Micraster, and the Rhynchopygus with the 

 Ananchytic-looking apex. 



. It is evident that this Cainozoic fauna contains the elements of 

 two previous ones, and that it foreshadowed a part of the recent 

 Australian, whilst some of its species, with some modifications, re- 

 semble those of the neighbouring- seas. The general facies of the 

 whole is older than is warranted by the geological position. 



Nearly all the genera are peculiar from their great vertical or 

 horizontal range, the exceptions being in the cases of Arachnoides 

 and Maretia. Two of the three species which are common to 

 the Cainozoic and Eecent faunas have a wide distribution in 

 the Pacific, and one also in the Atlantic. Four of the species 

 which resemble recent Australian forms to a certain extent are 

 very characteristic. They are Leiocidaris austrcdice, Arachnoides 

 Loveni, Eupatagus Laiibei, and Lovenia (Hemipatagus) Forbesi. 

 They give the so-called Miocene facies, which, however, is suffi- 

 ciently indefinite. This appearance is added to by the other species 

 belonging to genera still existing in the neighbouring seas, the 

 scattering of forms having been from South Australia to the east and 

 especially to the north. 



Of 25 genera belonging to the recent Australian fauna only 7 

 are represented in the Australian Cainozoic deposits — namely, Arach- 

 noides, Echinobrissas, Eupatagus, Lovenia, ScJiizaster, Echinanthus, 

 and Echinarachnius. The most truly Australioid genera, and those 

 which give the facies to the recent fauna, are not found in the 

 deposits; for no species have been discovered of Strongylocentrotus, 

 Microcyphus, Salmans, Amblypneustes, and Holopneustes. These 

 Echinoidea were not then on the area ; and their place was occupied 

 by numerous Spatangoids, most of which foreshadowed those of the 

 Eecent fauna ; and these, from their range, are not very character- 

 istic of it. 



The spines which were found, but not associated with their tests, 

 resemble those of some recent Australian genera, such as Phyllacan- 

 thus, Goniocidaris, Stephanocidaris and Brissus: the nature of the 

 spines of Leiocidaris australice from the Cainozoic is unknown. It 

 is not safe to argue from such resemblances concerning specific or 

 even generic relationships ; but nevertheless the presence of the 

 spines should be an incentive to the further search for Cidaridee. 



It is interesting to find the fossil Echini affording the same 

 evidences as the fossil corals respecting the affinities of the Cainozoic 

 and recent Australian faunas. Of the 31 species of corals not one 

 has yet been found in the recent coral fauna ; and out of 20 recent 

 Australian coral genera, only three very worldwide ones are repre- 

 sented in the Cainozoic deposits. 



It was remarked in the essay on the fossil corals that they ap- 

 peared to have a facies of the fauna of the seas to the north of 

 extratropical Australia ; and this holds good for the Echini. The 

 inference that there was then a warmer climate in the southern 



