37 
I have seen only imperfect examples, but the interest attached to it is 
both of a morphological and geological nature. In some of its characters it 
approaches closely to those of H. australis, and I at one time regarded it 
merely as a variety of the latter. The entire absence of mesopores (so far as 
my observation has gone), and the absence of closely-clustered autoporal 
tabulae, seem to set it apart ; but, at the same time, I accord it specific rank 
with all reservation. The plan of growth of the colonies appears to be similar 
to that of H. australis, although the fenestrules are of a less rambling habit. 
The absence of mesopores is quite apparent on examining longitudinal 
sections, the autopores abutting closely against one another, the tabula? of 
contiguous tubes being either opposite or sub-opposite. The septa are by no 
means easy to distinguish. They are faintly discernible in a transverse section 
as short spines, and in the longitudinal as dark dots in the visceral chambers 
of the autopores, representing the cut ends of the spines projecting from the 
autoporal walls. The number of cycles appears to be inconstant — one cycle 
in one visceral chamber, two in others, and possibly three in a few instances. 
If the constant absence of mesopores is a specific feature, the Queensland 
coral is certainly distinct from any of the foregoing. It is at the same time 
a feature of high morphological importance, for it proves what has been 
foreshadowed in some of the previous species that gemmation may proceed 
from autopore to autopore without the intervention of a mesopore. 
The first indication of Halysites as a Queensland fossil is due to 
Mr. B. Dunstan, Acting Government Geologist of Queensland, who recorded 1 
its occurrence near Mungana, Chillagoe Gold-field. 
In 1900 I described 2 a Halysites, in a highly altered condition, from 
the Gordon Limestone at the Mersey lliver, between Liena and Mole Creeks, 
Tasmania, forwarded to me by Mr. T. Stephens, M.A., of Hobart. With the 
exception of two trivial characters, viz., the size and form of the fenestrules, 
and the presence of concave instead of generally horizontal autoporal tabulae, 
the general structure does not appear to differ from that of H. chillagoensis. 
The form and size of the autopores is practically the same, there are the same 
thick and feebly corrugate lamellar walls, solid and trenchant intercorallite 
walls, and no mesopores, feeble gonoporcs, and these not always present 
(or obliterated ?), and small septa. The general resemblance impresses me 
strongly. 
1 Dunstan. — -Some Chillagoe Geological Notes — Ann. Progress Report Geol. Survey Q'landfor 1900 (1901). 
p. 21. 
2 Etheridge, Junr., Proc. R. Soc. Tas. for 1898-99 (1900), p. 81. 
