282 
Ohs. A very poor example was figured by Mr. Etheridge to “ draw the atten- 
tion of Australian geologists to the Lamellibranchiata of the PaliBOzoic rocks of 
Queensland, and elsewhere through the colony, in the hope that search may be made 
for more perfect specimens.” 
As the anterior of the shell is unltnown its generic affinity must remain doubtful, 
but it seems to accord better with the late Prof. Ue Koninck’s restriction of 
Sanguinolites than with Edmondia, to the type species of wdiieh it bears resemblance. 
There is a decided posterior slope present, but only the faintest trace of a diagonal 
ridge. 
Loc. and Horizon. G-ympie {The late R. Raintree- — G. Sweet) ■, the Gas Works, 
Gympie ( W. H. Rands ) — Gympie Beds. 
Family— SAXICAVID.®. ? 
Genus— PAGHIROIIUS, Morris, 1845. 
(Strzeleold’a Phya. Deaovip. N. S. Wales, &c., p. 271.) 
Ohs. In the “ Catalogue of Australian Fossils,” and in the description of the 
“ Fossils of the Boweu Eiver Coal Field,” attention was called by the Writer to the 
difficulties attending a proper distribution of the species of Dana’s genera, JAcowio (vel. 
Myoniai), Ryramia (vel. Rymmus), and Cleohis as pointed out by the late Dr. Stolitzka. 
In Professor Dana’s first Paper on Australian Palajontology, contributed to the pages of 
the American Journal of Science, the three were described as separate and distinct 
genera, but in the more extended account of the Geology of the “Wilkes Exploring 
Expedition” they were united under the one name Mwonia. Dana at the same time 
stated that his Pyramia was identical with JVbtomya, McCoy. The arrangement adopted 
in the Catalogue was a purely provisional one, proposed more as a temporary suggestion 
than as an accurate solution of a difficult and obscure subject. Reasons were also given 
for adopting the name Hotomya, McCoy, in preference to any of the others. 
Further study of this subject has not ended in any very satisfactory result, as the 
material in the National Collection, London,* although large, is not sufficient for the 
purpose in view. Added to this, the discrepancies between the various descriptions are 
so marked that it becomes quite impossible to adjudicate on the relations of the species 
referred to the genera in question. Pachydomus and Notomya will probably stand as 
good genera, certainly the former, and it is quite possible that it will be necessary to 
some extent to rehabilitate Mceonia, Dana. 
I hope, before any lengthened period has passed away, to make a complete study 
of this group of shells, but from the paucity of material it will be no easy task. 
Paciitdomus 0LOBOSUS, J. de C. Sowerby, sp. 
Megadesmus gldbosus, J. de C. Sowerby, Mitchell’s Three Expeds. Int. E. Australia, 1S38, i., p. 15, t. 3, 
ft. 1 and 2. 
Pachydomus ylohosus, Morris, Strzelecki’s Phys. Descrip. N. S. Wales, &.C., 1845, p. 272, t. 10, f. 2 and 3. 
Cleohis ijrandis, Dana, American .Journ. Sci., 1847, iv., p. 154. 
Mceonia gra/ndis, Dana, Geology Wilkes' U. S. Explor. Exped., Vol. x., 1819, p. 697, t. 0, f. 8. 
Pachydomus globusus [pars.), Etheridge fil.. Cat. Australian Foss., 1878, p. 75. 
,, ,, Etheridge fil., Proo. E. Phys. Soc. Edinb., 1880, v., p. 301. 
Ohs. The fossiliferous rock of Pelican Creek has furnished a ponderous example 
of this species, but in a wretched state of preservation, without any trace of shelly 
matter remaining, and the whole substance of the cast having assumed the form of ^ 
* This was written before I had left London. I am sorry to say th.it I do not find that the material 
in Sydney will advance the subject much. [B.E, Junr. 
