257 
those of another. The alar expansions are covered with minute short prickles. At one 
time I took this to bo either the young state ol Froductm suhguadratus, or a peculiar 
condition of P. hraclythcerus, and I am not prepared to deny that it may not be one or 
the other even now. However, in many points the specimen has even a closer 
resemblance to Dr. Waagen’s figures of three Indian species— P. Sumboldti, D’Orb., 
P. AhicJii, Waagen,* and P. serialis, Waagen.f The shape is identical, the clustering 
of the prickle-like spines on the wings the same, the broad undefined sinus similar, and 
above all the long toar-like quincimcially arranged body spines in every way like those on 
our specimen. The only difference I can detect— but this may result from the fact that 
the latter is not perfect towards the front margin— is the absence of the closely clustered 
and smaller spines all round the front of the shell, aud similar to those on the alar 
Gxjiansions. These form a very marked feature of the Indian shells. Whatever may prove 
to be the identity of the present form, there remains the fact that we have in the Queens- 
land beds one in many re.spects closely similar to forms found in India, more particularly 
^at called by Waagen Producius Abichi. I say “called” because it seems to me that 
y- AVaageu has figured under three separate names what might, with great advantage to 
science, have been confined to one. All three species, P. Rmnholdti, P. Abichi, and P. 
serialis, so closely resemble one another, that I think only the Author himself could 
separate them. Of the two first. Dr. Waagen candidly states it to be “ solely a matter 
of taste whether the difference be admitted or not as sufficieut for the distinction of two 
separate species.” The difference consists simply of a “coarser tuberculation, and 
hy the more elongated form of the tubercles.” P. serialis is said to differ from 
■P- Abichi by a well-developed concentric folding in a more or less close relation 
to the spines distributed on the surface of the ventral valve. I regard all three 
species as one, therefore, which may be known under the name of Productus Sumboldti, 
originally determined by Dr. Davidson. J- 
There is the bare possibility that this may be a Strophalosia. The spines have 
greatly the appearance of those of this genus, but I have not seen any evidence of the 
teeth or sockets of the hinge-liue. In my Paper on the Permo-Carboniferous Possils 
from North-West Australia, I omitted to mention that the shell there named Productus 
^ achythogrus, and which is certainly the same as that now figured, possessed a depressed 
'vertical groove on the beak, after the manner of some Btrophalosiai. 
Loc. and Horizon. Richards’ Homestead, three miles south-west of Mount 
ritton Township (P. Hull) — Middle or Marine Series of the Bowen River Coal 
I'ield. 
Pkoductus, sp. ind. (/.), PI. 41, fig. 13. 
Obs. A small form, which cannot be passed over, from the fact that the shell is 
Reserved. It recalls to mind, in a very curious manner, the young condition of one of 
e varieties of the common Productus giganteus of the European Carboniferous rocks, 
e body of the shell is large and gibbous, as compared with the small and sharp ears, 
®'Qd transversely oblong in shape. The umbone is obtuse and much incurved, and the 
surface covered with fine, separate, thread-like direct ribs, and the small ears delicately 
^rinkled. In fact I never saw a closer resemblance in miniature to the above species 
^“an in this little shell. 
Loc. and Horizon. Tatton &old Pield (P. L. Jack) — Glympie Beds. 
* Pal. Indioa (Salt Range Fossils), 1884, Ser. xiii., Vol. i, Pt. 4, fas. 4, t. 74, f. 1-7. 
t lUd., t. 74, f. 8«-d. 
J Quart. Journ. Geol. Sec., 1862, xviii., p. 32, t. 2, f. 6. 
