143 
In attempting to deduce the age of the beds from these imperfect frag¬ 
ments, we must consider, not only what is present, but also what is absent. 
In the first place, the fragments are certainly not monograptid, for there 
is no sign of an embedded virgula in any specimen. Secondly, there are 
no diplograptids present. The beds then cannot be Silurian, but must be 
Ordovician. 
All the thecae shown may be referred to the Dichograptidae or other 
old families. There are no Dicranograptidae present. This fact, sup¬ 
ported by the absence of Diplograptidae, points to a Lower Ordovician 
horizon. If, as seems quite possible, No. 1457 is, a Bryograptus allied to 
B. victoriae , then the beds are very low down in the series. There is no¬ 
thing in the fragments present which would contradict this view, and they 
might even be compared with forms from this low horizon. However, the 
material is too poor and fragmentary for a definite opinion to be pro¬ 
nounced, though what there is points to Lower Ordovician. 
Of the specimens, numbers 1452, 1454 are doubtfully graptolites; the 
remainder are undoubted. 
University, 14th November, 1906. 
PRESENT 1 ^ 
9 MAY 1908 
By Authority : J. Kemp, Acting Government Printer* Melbourne. 
