280 
Ch^nomxa ? ACTJTA, Mherulgc, sp. 
Panopcaplkuta, var. acuta, Ktheridge, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soo., 1872,xxviii., Pt. 3, p. 342, t. 21, f. 3 and 3«. 
Ohs. My Colleague states that the shell referred by Mr. Etheridge to the 
Cretaceous species Panopea plicata, Sby., under the varietal name actifa comes from the 
Permo-Carboniferous Series of the Eowen Eiver Coal Field, and can therefore bear no 
relation to the form described by Sowerby. 
Mr. Etheridge remarks that “ our shell is more acute than Sowerby’s typical 
form, the posterior or anal border or extremity in this variety being less truncated ; it, 
however, gapes as much.” It is not impossible that this fossil may be a species of 
Ghcenomya, although we at jJresent know little of the external sculpture, whether granu- 
lar or not. It is even possible, judging from the difference in outline of Mr. Etheridge’s 
figures, that two species have been placed under the one name. 
Loc. and Horizon. Pelican Creek, Bowen Eiver {The late B. Dainfree) — Middle 
or Marine Series, Bowen Eiver Coal Field. 
CniENOMYA? nowENEtrsis, sp. nov. 
Sanguinolites {comp. 8. clava, MoCoy), Etheridge fil., Proo. E. Phys. Soc. Edinb., 1880, v., p. 302, t. 16, f. 54, 
Sp. Char. Shell transversely elongate, produced, nasute, and sharp posteriorly, 
closed, very convex in the visceral region, rapidly decreasing towards the ventral margin. 
Cardinal margin or hinge-line straight ; ventral margin convex ; anterior end gibbous 
and inflated ; posterior end much compressed or flattened, wedge-like, attenuating 
rapidly to a sharp, thin margin, which is narrowly rounded. Umbones quite anterior 
and terminal, inrolled, and depressed from above ; no diagonal ridge, or defined posterior 
slope, but the flanks of the valves much inflated and gibbous. Lunule apparently some- 
what cordate. Surface with rather broad, concentric lamellse of growth, forming 
coarse rug® on the flattened posterior end. 
Ohs. I formerly regarded this shell as a Sanguinolites and compared it to S. data, 
McCoy, but it cannot be placed in that genus as now restricted. The following remarks 
were then made: — “ With the exception of a somewhat shorter and more gibbous form, 
I am unable to distinguish this species from Prof. McCoy’s S. clava. The specimen is 
a decorticated cast, there are no traces of muscular impressions left, and the valves have, 
by pressure, been slightly displaced. Notwithstanding this it is easily seen that the 
shell possessed a much more gibbous and rotund habit than S. clava, the relative 
convexity of the valves immediately below the beaks being greater. The rapid attenua- 
tion of the flanks towards the ventral margin, and the thinning-off of the posterior end, 
are as in S. clava, and there also existed a well-marked lunette and escutcheon, although 
the latter was much shorter than in McCoy’s species. Easily, the posterior slope is 
more defined in the Australian form, and the valves were closed posteriorly. Taking 
all these characters together, it must be conceded that, in all probability, the two species 
are distinct. A useful comparison might be made between Mr. Jack’s shell and two 
Australian species described by Dana, did we only know more about them, viz. : — ■ 
Edmondia? {Pholadomya) glendonensis,* and Sanguinolites or Edmondia? {Phola- 
domya) undata.^ The first, as figured by Dana, is a crushed-down shell, without form 
or character, and is simply unrecognizable ; all one can say is, that it appears to be a 
shorter form than that now under discussion. The second is a very Sanguinolites-\i^e> 
shell, and is clearly separated from the latter by the position of the beaks, more than 
sub-central in position, and the consequently larger anterior end. 
* Geology Wilkes’ U. S. Explor. Expect, 1849, Vol. x.. Atlas, t. 2, f. 12. 
t Loc, cit., f. 11. 
