AUSTRALIAN CLAD CERA. 



7. Macrothrix spinosa, King. 



See above. 



8. Eurycercus Cunninghami, King. 

 Mr. King is most certainly wrong in regarding this form as 

 an Eurycercus. There is in fact no similarity whatever. The 

 sculpture of the shell somewhat resembles that characteristic of 

 the genus AhneUa, whereas the very broad, obliquely truncate 

 carapace reminds one of the genus L&ydigia. It would seem 

 however in other respects to differ essentially from both of these 

 genera, and may more properly be regarded as the type of a 

 distinct new genus, for which the name of Kingia might be 

 adopted. 



> 9. Eurycercus spinosus, King. 



Perhaps congeneric with the last-named species; very diffe- 

 rent from Eurycercus. 



10. Chydorus augustus, King. 



Nearest related perhaps to the European species C. globoms 

 Baird, though undoubtedly distinct. 



11. Chydorus Leonardi, King. 



This form would seem, both as regards its small size and 

 the form of the tail, to come very near to the well-known Eu- 

 ropean species C. sphtericus (Miiller). 



12. Alona Bairdii, King. 

 Though undoubtedly belonging to the genus Alma, this spe- 

 cies would seem to differ from any of the European species, as 

 also from those described in the present paper. 



