78 
1 '30 (33), length of zygomatic arch 1-20 (30), inside above 1 (25), 
below 0-62 (15 ; 5), extent of range from 2nd premolar to last 
molar in upper jaw 0 62 (15-5), of molars and premolars in lower 
jaw 0-60 (15), width outside at 2nd molar— upper jaw 0-56 (14), 
lower jaw 045 (11), length of mandible from condyle 1-35 (34)’ 
height to point of ascending ramus 08 (20), extent of symphysis 
of lower jaw 0-35 (9), length of free portion of lower incisors 
0-35 (9), anterior palatal foramen opposite canine and first 
premolar, length 0-15 (4), canines tubercular, equal in size to first 
premolar, three incisors of the upper jaw 0-2 (5), space between 
last upper incisor and first premolar 0-28 (7), between canine and 
first premolar 0-1 (2’5). 
This species approaches most nearly to Petaurides volans, var. 
minor of Oldfield Thomas. (Brit. Mus. Cat. C.) 
Two specimens were obtained by Messrs. Cairn and Grant in 
1889, on one of the spurs of the Bellenden-Ker Range, N.E. 
Queensland. 
ON PARHELIA ETHERIDGE!, BRAZIER. 
By C. Hedlky, E.L.S., 
Zoologist, Queensland Museum, Brisbane. 
(Communicated by J. Brazier.) 
(Plate xi.) 
In Mr. Etheridge’s account of the Museum Expedition to Lord 
Howe Island, published last year by the Trustees of the Australian 
Museum, we read (p. 26) that “A fine new species of Vitrina 
was found on the stems and leaf sheaths of the palms growing 
on the lower grounds ( Kentia belmoreana the curly palm, and 
Kentia forsteriana the thatch palm), and is called by Mr. Brazier 
Vitrina etlieridgei. 
A specimen of this mollusk was courteously communicated to 
me for anatomical examination by Mr. Brazier, who pointed out 
how closely it answered to the figure and description of Parmella 
planata , H. Adams, from Fiji (P.Z.S., 1867, p. 308, pi. xix., fig. 20). 
The smaller size and lighter colour of the shell, added to the 
difference in habitat, though stress must not be laid upon the 
latter, incline me to rank Mr. Brazier’s species apart from that 
of Adams’. Whilst the very peculiar shell with its veil of 
epidermis, like gold beater’s skin, descending from the periphery 
confirms me in Mr. Brazier’s opinion that we have here a second 
species of this long lost genus. 
Fischer states (Man. de Conch., p. 460) that no information of 
the animal has ever been recorded, and that its systematic position 
