496 
Amjionitks 8dtheela.ndi, Mlieridge, PL 29, fig. 6. 
Ammonites Sutherimvli, Etheridge, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soo., 1872, x.'cviii., p. 34.5, t. 21, f. 4. 
Sp. Char. Shell discoidal ; whorls three or four, with flattened sides and six 
or seven transverse wavy furrows on the outer whorl ; these are slightly inflected 
forwards on the sides of the shell, and pass over the back at right angles to the keel ; 
back sharply convex ; the .surface of the shell appears to have been marked by, or 
ornamented with, fine lines or striae apparently arranged at a different angle from the 
sulci or furrows. Umbilicus small, well exposed, its walls rounded; aperture oval, 
elongated, or acutely ovate. {Etheridge.) 
Ohs. Avery small portion only of the shell remains upon the side of the outer whorl, 
between the last two sulci, and shows faintly the fine undulating lines. The sutures 
are so indistinctly marked that the shell cannot be referred to any known species. 
A. Sutlierlantlihii.& affinity with A. Raspail, from the Neoeomian,* but the 
sulci or fuiTows are fevver and wider, and the umbilicus smaller. Jlfone of the group 
Ligati, in the fine Indian Collection named and described by Perd. Stoliczka, affords any 
clue to the form from Queensland, although some twenty-eight Indian species belong to 
this group. The smallness of the umbilical cavity and depth of the outer whorl remove 
this form from any species with which we can ally or compare it. {Etheridge.) ^ 
Loc. Marathon Station {The late R. Daintree ; O. Siveet — Colin. Sweet, 
Melbourne). 
Ammonites Sutheblandi, MoGoy, MS. 
AmmAonitcs Sutkerlandii McCoy, Trans. R. Soc. Viet., 1868, viii., Pt. 1, p. 42. 
Ohs. The only information we have regarding this Ammonite is the following 
passage by Prof. Sir P. McCoy : — “ A new small species like the Prench A. Paran- 
dieri,-\ of the Grault.” Sir P. McCoy’s name, although having precedence over that 
given by Mr. E. Etheridge, P.E.S., in point of time, cannot retain its position, 
simply from the want of adequate description, and is, in fact, merely a manuscript name. 
It is just possible that both Authors have had. the same species before them. Prof. 
McCoy compared his shell to Ammonites Parandieri, to which Mr. Etheridge’s figure 
also bears considerable resemblance. Both the latter shells have similar wavy furrows, 
but in Mr. Etheridge’s species the umbilicus is very much more concealed. As both 
shells, should they prove distinct, cannot retain the same name, a new one for McCoy’s 
MS. A. Suthorlandi, will be required. It is to be regretted that material is not forth- 
coming for a full and proper description. 
Eoc. Base of Walker’s Table Mountain, Plinders Eiver {Messrs. Sutherland 
and Oarson — National Museum, Melbourne). 
Genus — SAMITES, Parkinson, 1811. 
(Org. Remains, iii., p. 144.) 
Hamites ? LAQUEus, sp. iiov., PI. 42, figs. 14 and 15. 
Sp. Char. Shell oval, link-shaped, but the two extremities free, no helix or 
involute portion ; section at the older or proximal end nearly round, but compressed and 
oval at the younger or distal extremity. Surface of the older portion with close, 
encircling, usually simple, but occasionally bifurcating costse, which gradually broaden 
out as the shell expands, and become sharp and erect with wide intervals or valleys ; 
costse on the dorsal side horizontal or very slightly concave, and nearly horizontal on the 
* Lyc^e, p. 115, No. 2; Ann. Sci. d’Observation, t. iii., PI. 11, f. 3. 
t D’Orbigny Pal. Pran^. Terr. Cret., i., pp. 129 and 276, t. 38, f. 7*9. 
