A LARGE SPIRAL STRUCTURE FROM WESTERN QUEENSLAND. 209 
Winton Series in which it is developed is characterised by spherical concretions. 
A close, axial development of such spheres could lead to the production of a 
linear series of impinging, rounded, disc-like forms superficially similar in 
lateral view to this spiral. But I know of no method in which, by such 
means, a spiral coiling could be produced. 
Woodward's suggestion of an internal mould of a giant gastropod, 
although capable of explaining the form of Dinocochlea and the North Sea 
specimen, is inadmissible for this spiral. There is no gradual increase in the 
size of the whorls ; and the free end that is preserved suggests neither the 
proximal nor the distal end of a gastropod shell. Furthermore, considering 
the conditions of preservation, the absence of any trace of shell substance is 
opposed to such a conclusion. 
Many coprolites, as Buckland (1835) long ago showed, are spiral things ; 
and most of the giant spirals now discussed can be compared in superficial 
form with the small things figured by him. The great size of these spirals 
has been regarded as militating against such an origin. This is unreasonable ; 
for both the Wealden and the Queensland spirals occur in beds where giant 
dinosaurs are known. Austrosaurus mclcillopi, a dinosaur recently described by 
Longman from the Tambo Series, was estimated to be of the order of fifty 
feet in length (Longman, 1933, p. 142). With beasts of such size a coprolite 
of seven feet in length is possible. Some interest is added to this suggestion 
by the piled nodular masses associated with the spiral and conceivably of 
faecal origin. However, a serious objection to the coprolite theory is that the 
microslides show the minerals of a normal, arenaceous, sedimentary rock and 
have no fragments of fish scales or other organic matter — undigested food 
particles — that might be expected if it were a coprolite. It is possible, of 
course, and easy to imagine that the substance of a coprolite shortly after 
being embedded in a loose sediment could be dissolved away and the cavity 
so produced infilled by arenaceous sedimentary material. But it is difficult 
to conceive of this happening without some collapse of the walls, particularly 
on the upper surface ; and the only deformation noticed on the specimen is 
slight and on what appears to be the lower surface. 
Replaced root structures and the infilling of a burrow* are the theories 
most favoured to explain Daemonhelix. Each is capable of explaining the form 
of the Queensland spiral but neither can be proved. The closed end preserved 
on the specimen suggests that, if it be an infilled burrow, that end is the 
underground termination, and the other end should then be open. It is 
unfortunate that this end is incomplete. For the Wealden and the North 
Sea spirals, where both ends are preserved, the burrow theory is unlikely. 
If the Queensland form should be an infilled burrow the question arises what 
animal with a horizontally burrowing habit could dig the cavity. 
* With Daemonhelix the burrow has been attributed to some form of rodent. 
