475 
conversation witli Prof. II. Tate, lie expressed tlie opinion ttat tbis species was identical 
witb Cyprinn expansa, Etheridge. It is, of course, extremely difiBcult to arrive at a definite 
conclusion when dealing with such imperfect material, and when also tlie types are not 
before us ; hut, allowing for discrepancies of outline, I find myself quite in accord with 
so authoritative an opinion. In Cyprinn expnnsa the umhoncs are quite anterior, and 
projecting forwards prominently ; the curve ot the anterior hinge from the umbones is 
short, and the posterior hinge-line more or less horizontal, giving to the shell, with 
its otlier. features, a somewhat quadrangular aspect. On the other band, in Gytherea 
Glarlte.i the umbones are some way removed from the anterior end ; the curve of the 
anterior hinge is long and open ; whilst the posterior hinge rapidly descends in an 
oblique curve, although, as before stated, this portion of Moore’s specimen was clearly 
defective. At any rate, this is the view the appearance of the figures would appear to 
justify. 
More closely resembling Moore’s figure are those given on our Plato 27 (figs. 10 
and 11), although representing a smaller shell. The specimens are of medium size, 
rotund-ovate, longer than high, and with no great convexity of valves. The hinge was 
arcuate, especially on the posterior side, and the ventral margin well rounded ; umbones 
moderately convex and close together, incurved, and rather more anterior than posterior. 
The muscular impressions are ■well marked, especially the anterior, wdiilst the pallial 
line was deeply and widely sinuated. Portions of the shell are preserved showing that 
the surface bore fine regular, raised, concentric lines, here and there broken by a more 
marked interruption of growth, and on the anterior end crossed by a few oblique 
similar lines, but not on other portions of the test. 
If the two shells (PL 27, figs. 10 and 11) are not Cythorea Clarhei, I am at a loss 
as to their identity, and can only arrive at the conclusion that they are an unnamed 
species of Gytherea, so far peculiar to the Queensland bods. The less transversely 
elongated and arcuate outline will distinguish them from the species here called 
Macroeallista Taylori. Gytherea Clarhei evidently attains a considerable size. “ It is 
one of the largest of Australian bivalves,” says Mr. Moore, “ and appears toliave attained 
a large size, even for a Gytherea The largest example measures six and 
a-quarter inches in breadth by four and a-quarter inches in depth.” 
In addition to this species Mr. Moore alluded to a second, under the name of 
Gytherea gibhosa, with the following brief remarks “ A second species, much more 
convex and gibbous, with umbones much thickened, is present, but the specimen is too 
imperfect for description. It is from Wollumbilla.” This was not figured, and as it is 
impossible to recognise a species from such a description, the name had better be 
expunged from the list. 
Loc. Wollumbilla {The late Bev. W. B. Clarice) ; Maranoa River {Ibid) ; 
G-regory River, north of Einnis Springs {Ibid.) ; Upper Flinders River {Son. A. G. 
Gregory) ; Walsh River, PI. 27, figs. 9 and 11 {Son. A. C. Gregory) ; Minmi, near 
Eoma(iB. L. Jach). Also recorded by Prof. R. Tate,* from Cootanoonna, thirty or 
forty miles north-west of the Peake, Central Australia, and from the Peake. 
Genus— CALLISTA, Poll, 1791. 
(Tost. Utr. Sioil.) 
Section — MACKOCAL LISTA, Itleelc, 1876. 
(Invert. Cret. and Tert. Foss. Up. Missouri Country, p. 179.). 
Ohs. It is more than probable that this section of Gallista exists in the Queens- 
land Cretaceous. The excellent remarks of the late Mr. Meek in reference to the proper 
* Trans. R. Soo. S. Austr. for 1879-80 [1880], iii., p. 179. 
