497 
ventral side, sUglitly sigmoidally curved on the flanks ; tubercles occasionally developed 
on the older ribs, a lino bordering tbe sip)huncle on each side, and one, or sometimes two, 
on each flank ; sipbuncle small ; chambers about two and a-half lines thick. 
Ohs. This peculiar shell is provisionally referred to Hamites, and is only known 
to me in the semi-convolute link-like form flgured. The above description, therefore, 
only applies to specimens in such a condition. In an ordinary Hamites the two 
extremities are returned and approach one another in the same plane, the small or older 
end being again recurved on itself. Tbe returning is so arranged that tbe growth of 
the individual could go bn uninterruptedly from the one extremity without interfering 
with that of the other. In the present shell, however, the curvature is such that the 
extremities, being in the same plane, approach one another, so that in its present state of 
preservation a disunited link is formed. The first example of this I took to be either a 
malformation or one in which fracture had displaced one or other of the ends. But as 
there is no trace of misplacement, and as other individuals are exactly similar, neither 
of these hypotheses will hold, and we can only regard it as a particular feature of the 
species. At the same time, it is manifest that if the younger end continued to grow in 
the same plane and direction it would ultimately abut against the older and smaller 
extremity. To what distance the latter extended before the crozier, or initial point, as the 
case may be, would be reached, it is impossible to say, as all the specimens are broken 
short off when the two portions approach one another. At the rate of attenuation the 
proximal end could not have been greatly extended, probably not more than three inches 
in the largest example. 
In the figured specimen the distal or larger end has rather the appearance of a 
terminal grow'th, but there is no trace of a definite margin. 
One specimen possesses the proximal end tuberculated, but other examples do 
not show such ornament. 
It would appear that the present species falls more readily into Hamulina * 
rather than Hamites. In the former the shell is only once bent upon itself, the parts 
not in contact, and is without a “ crozier,” but, unfortunately, D’Orbigny is said by 
Bictet f to have abandoned his genus and it has probably, therefore, little stability. 
The curvature of the shell being in one plane renders a comparison with Helicoceras 
nseless. 
Loc. Tower Hill, Landsborough Hiver {The late B. Haintree — Queensland 
Mus.) ; Warrego River — Queensland Mus. ; Wellshot Run, near Barcaldine {A. 
Ly mourner') . 
Genus— ANGYLOOHBAS, B'Orligny, 1842. 
(Pal. Fran 9 . Terr. Oret., i., Pt. 2, p. 491.) 
Anctioceeas Flindeesi, McCoy, PI. 3.3, fig. 3 ; PI. 34, figs. 5-8. 
■AncyToceras Flindersi, McCoy, Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 1867, xix., p. 356. 
,1 ,, Etheridge fil., Joum. R. Soo. N. S. Wales, 1883, xvii., p. 89, 2nd pi. (upper 6g.) 
Ohs. This species has never been described in detail, but Sir P. McCoy says it 
exceeds the Ancyloeeras yiyas, Sby., in size, and differs by having the transverse ribs 
larger and forking on the sides, and the presence of a row of large compressed tubercles 
Oh each side of the back. He further considers its nearest ally to be the Ancyloeeras 
'laherelli, Astier, of the French Lower Greensand. The type in the IS'ational 
Museum, Melbourne, to which access was kindly given me by Sir F. McCoy, is a 
fragment eight inches long, with tubercles along the sides of the back. From each of 
these two to three ribs arise passing to the flanks. The ribs on the back are double. 
* D’Orbigny, Prod. Pal. Strat., 1862, ii., p. 66, f Traite de Pal., ii., p. 707. 
2 H 
