GRAPTOLITES OF AUSTRALIA 
27 
Newham, Parwan, Darriwil, Holden, Leigh River, Mel- 
bourne, Lancefield, Loddon River, Kangaroo Creek, Coolbar- 
ghurk. Spring Plains, Daylesford, Cockatoo Gully, Werribee 
Gorge, Watchbox Ranges, and Redesdale. Most of these 
localities are from the Quarter Sheets (vide 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10). 
He recorded from Alexandra, Monograptus cf. galaensis; 
from McLauchlan’s Creek, south of the Victorian border. 
East Gippsland, ('?) Viccllogmptus morrisi, D. anceps, 
Diplograptus tnincatus, (?) Climacograptus caudatus; and 
from Thoona, Glossograptus, Diplograptus, Climacograptus 
and cf. Dichograptidae. From the Moorabool River near 
Maude, he recorded Tetragraptus cf. quadribrachiatus. 
He recorded (38) from Cravensville, Climacograptus bi- 
cornis et var. tridendatus, Diplograptus foliaceus, Dicello- 
graptus sextans, Glossograptus sp. ; from mid-way between 
Cravensville and Dart River, Didymograptus sp. ; from Glen- 
dart, near Dart River, Climacograptus sp., Glossograptus sp., 
Diplograptus sp. He gives the age of the Cravensville beds 
as Upper Ordovician. 
He adds that the Glossograptus obtained from Cravensville 
and Glendart is identical with that previously recorded from 
Sandy’s Creek (37), and Tungamah (30). 
A collection of graptolites from a small quarry a few 
hundred yards north of the disused Mt. William Railway 
Station near Lancefield disclosed a number of new species 
as well as already described forms on which he had based his 
Lancefield Zone. The new species described and figured (39) 
were Bryograptus victoriae, B. clarki, Leptograptus 
antiquus, Didymograptus pritchardi, D. taylori, Tetra- 
graptus decipiens, Dictyonema pulchellum, and he recorded 
Clonograptus flexilis, C. magnificus, C. rigidus, C. tenellus, 
Phyllograptus sp. and Dictyonema maegilivrayi. 
He reviewed (40) the earlier graptolite work done by 
McCoy and others. He pointed out that the work of these 
pioneers, as in England before Lapworth undertook his work 
of revision, is unreliable. He stressed the fact “that the 
minute differences on which it has been found advisable to 
separate the species in this difficult group were not then 
generally recognized, and we find many of our graptolites 
identified with forms from which we now regard them as 
even, it may be, generically distinct. In the case of those 
forms where the method of branching and the habit is a 
guide there was, of course, less liability to confusion, and 
here the specific identifications are of value, but it is 
extremely doubtful, on the other hand, whether any of the 
