697 
Tet another Ammonite, which Dr. H. Woodward — who was kind enough to 
examine casts of all these fossils sent him by myself — compares to A. lingulatus, 
Quenst., of the White Jura. Eigurcs of this species are not accessible to me, and I 
cannot find anything jmecisely like it, although it seems to he of the Upper Oolite type 
of A. Laniherti, Sby., and A. Sutlierlandiai, Sby., as figured by D’Orbigny,* * * § in so 
far as the break in the double costation goes, but the back of our shell is much too 
broad and the costse too fine. The square back, with its oblique costae, and the 
marginal crenulations, all convey to this shell a much more Upper Oolite or Lofver 
Cretaceous aspect than they give to it a Lower Oolite facies. Neither is it impossible 
that a relation may exist between it and A. Leai, Uorbes.t 
So far as our present knowledge of Queensland Ammonites exists, there is no 
connection between the latter and either of the species described above, although our 
one bears some resemblance to Moore’s Anmnonites maorooephalusX from Western 
Australia. 
The article then proceeded to refer to the fossils already described as collected 
by Mr. E. Bdelfelt and Mr. T. Bevan, and this portion need not be repeated. 
Such is a brief outline of the Palseoutology of New Guinea, so far as it is 
known to the Writer. Briefly reviewing these facts, it is manifest that the oldest 
fossiliferous rocks on this Island-continent of which we at present have any record, 
probably correspond homotaxially with the Upper Oolites of other countries, more 
particularly the European, at the same time displaying some relation to the Indian beds 
of the same age. As regards the Imceramvs, it would appear to resemble an old-world 
Cretaceous species ; but the specimen being a single one, too much stress must not bo 
laid upon this point. It may simply be said that Cretaceous rocks put in a claim for 
consideration. 
Of the Tertiary fossils it is necessary to speak more fully, but with caution. The 
presence of Valuta macrofiem and V. anticingulata in the Yule Island deposit, would 
go a long way towards correlating the latter with the beds containing these shells at 
Schnapper Point and Muddy Creek, in Victoria, as suggested by Mr. C. S. Wilkinson. I 
was indebted to the kindness of the late Prof. W. T. Stephens, M.A., for an opportunity 
of examining the Yule Island collection in the Macleay Museum, § but the species 
mentioned were not observed there, and only those described by the Rev. Mr. Woods 
came under observation. An attentive examination of these rather leads me to accept 
Mr. Woods’ suggestions as to the age of the fossils in question. The matrix is also 
clearly the same as that containing the coi’als collected by Mr. Edelfelt at Maiva 
Village. II 
The Urchin described as Temnechinus does not appear to belong to that genus 
as defined by its originator, Edward Eorbes,1[ and at the present moment I am 
not prepared to generically place the specimen. It may probably be an undescribed 
form. 
The Feronella would appear to be a small individual of the characteristic and 
generally distributed Australian species to which Mr. Woods has referred it. The 
* Pal. Fran^. Ter. Jur, Ceph., i., Atlas, fc. 177. 
t Quart. Journ, Geol, Soc., i., p. 178, t. 12rtand&. 
t Quart. Journ, Geol. Soc., xxvi., t. 15, f. 5 
§ The fossils were collected by Mr. J. Brazier. 
II Specimens are in the Mining and Geological Museum, as well as in the Queensland Survey Collection, 
TT Mon. Echinodermata Brit. Tertiaries, 1852, p. 5. The New Guinea fossil does not possess the 
typical excavations along the sutural margins of the plates seen in all true forms of Temnechinus, nor are 
the ambulacral plates confluent. These characters are emphasised by Forbes and accepted by A. Agassiz in 
bis “Revision,” 
