383 
Coal Measures, Greta Creek. Wood and leaves arc found in the Jerusalem Coal 
Basin in Tasmania, and koth are common, as we have seen, in the Ipswich Coal Beds, 
and in the Tivoli Mines in Queensland. 
“ Fragments of a kind of jet, in which, however, the coniferous structure is very 
visible, are common also in the Desert Sandstone in Queensland. Finally, there are 
some fossil Walclda, which evidently bore a large share in forming the coal at 
Ballimore.” 
The late Mr. James Smith collected coniferous wood at AVycarbah, near Eock- 
hampton (PL 4, figs. 9 and 10). Our figures have hardly been eukrged enough to show 
the complete structure, but in the specimen from which they are taken it is very finely 
preserved. They are portions of a Cupressinous Conifer, allied to, if not identical with, 
Spondylostrobus, von Mueller. PI. 4, fig. 9, is a radial section showing the medullary 
rays in horizontal lines, and the woody fibres in vertical lines. Fig. 10 is a transverse 
section, the walls and cavities of the woody fibres shown in quadrangular spaces, but 
the resin ducts are not visible. The latter, however, Baron von Mueller informs me, 
are frequently not visible in Spondylostrobus. The Baron has examined these slides 
and assents to their reference to his genus. Mr. Smith informed me that the block of 
wood was not found in, situ at Wycarbah, but, with many others, lay scattered over the 
surface of some miles of country, and, in fact, that such fragments are common every- 
where in Central Queensland. From this it is exceedingly doubtful if it belongs to the 
plant-bearing series at Wycarbah ; in fact, the evidence is pretty conclusive that it does 
not. On the contrary, the wood is probably derived from the. denudation of some later 
formation now swept away. 
Family — AEAUCAEI^. 
Genus— ABAUGABITES, Sternhery. 
(Flora der Vorwclt, ii., p. 203.) 
AeATTCAIIITES ? POLTCAEPA, Ten. Woods, PI. 18, fig. 1. 
Araucarites ? pohjtarpa, Ten. Woods, Proo. Linn. Soe. N. S. Wales, 1883, viii., Ft. 1, p. 165. 
„ australis, Ten. Woods, Ibid., t. 10, f. 1. 
Obs. The late Mr. Woods did not give a description of this cone, but the few 
characters now offered arc taken from our specimen — which, although much smaller, may 
possibly be the above species. The cone was probably elongate, and perhaps cylindrical ; 
the scales are rhomboidal, with a subapical mucro, or stout blunt spine, but do not appear 
to be ridged in the true sense of the word, nor divided into an upper or lower portion ; 
in each oblique row on the side visible there are about ten scales. 
Now, irrespective of the size of the cone, there are obviously a less number of 
scales in each spiral series in this specimen (PI. 18, fig. 1) than in Woods’ figure of 
A. ? polymrpa, and I think it questionable if the two can remain under the same 
name, an opinion in which I am sustained by that of Mr. E. Kidston. In passing, a 
reference might bo made to those plant-remains from the South Australian Mesozoic 
rocks, named by Dr. II. Woodward ILantellia babbayensis,* which bear a general 
resemblance to our fossil. lu addition to this cone, my Colleague has lately communicated 
to me an almost complete impression, too late to be figured, of one four inches long 
with a diameter rather exceeding three-quarters of an inch. It is hollow external 
east contained in an ironstone nodule rather similar to Mr. Woods example. The 
diameter of the present specimen is less than the latter; but the length is greater. 
* Geol. Mag., 1885, ii., p. 290, t. 7, ff. 1 and 2. 
