90 
Previous Work. 
Mr. R. Etheridge, jun., examined specimens of the trilobite remains in 
1894, and founded thereon the genus Dinesus, his paper 1 being published in 
1896. In this paper Mr. Etheridge quotes a letter sent to him by Dr. C. D. 
Walcott, the authority on America Cambrian faunas, who expressed the opinion 
that the Heathcote trilobites “ undoubtedly belong to the Middle Cambrian 
fauna, as they are not of the type found in the Upper or Lower Cambrian.’' 2 
Mr. Etheridge afterwards recorded the genus Protospongia from Heathcote 
(Dinesus ida beds) 3 and compared it with P. fenestrata,< Salter (Middle 
Cambrian of Wales), P. reticulata, .T. S. Hall (Lower Ordovician, Bendigo), 
and similar spicules from the Cambrian of North America figured by Dr. 
C. D. Walcott. It is important to note in this connexion Prof. Sheafs’ 
discovery of Protospongia in the normal Lower Ordovician rocks at Heathcote, 4 * 
the genus having been previously described from similar beds at Lancefield 
and Bendigo. 
Some years later Prof. Gregory devoted a section of his paper on “ The 
ILeatheotian—A Pre-Ordovician Series—-and Its Distribution in Victoria ” 6 
to the description of the fossils of the Dinesus ida beds. The pygidium 
referred to Dinesus by Mr. Etheridge is therein made the type of a new genus, 
Notasaphus, together with some cranidial remains differing from Dinesus . 6 
The present writer, in 1904, published some results of an examination o^ 
casts and moulds of brachiopods found in the Mt. Ida beds by Mr. Ferguson? 
and came to a similar conclusion with Prof. Gregory that the beds were of 
Ordovician age. 7 
A few years ago Mr. W. H. Ferguson paid another visit to Knowsley East, 
and made a far larger collection of fossils than on the former occasion. 
Realizing the importance of arriving at a more definite conclusion as to the 
geological horizon of this fauna, and its bearing on other related faunas in 
Victoria, Prof. Skeats and Mr. E. J. Dunn (late Director of the Victorian 
Geological Survey) suggested that the writer should undertake the 
re-examination of the fossils, the results of which are now submitted. It is 
only fair to add that this present work has been made much easier through 
the copius descripitions of Cambrian faunas in China and North America by 
Dr. C. D. Walcott, of the United States National Museum. Thus one 
distinctive genus of brachiopod, Huenella, formerly thought to belong to 
the Orthidoe both by Mr. Etheridge and myself, is shown by Dr. C. D. Walcott 
to be a member of the Pentameracea. It is represented by at least one 
species in the Cambrian of South Australia and by another in the present fauna. 
In regard to the previous determination of brachiopods from Knowsley East 
by the writer, comparisons had to be made with similar forms found elsewhere, 
hence the references in many instances to the better known Ordovician and 
Silurian genera, to which, judging from the sparse material available, they 
then seemed to belong. It is satisfactory to find so strong a light thrown on 
the question of the age and relationships of the Heathcotian fauna, not only 
by the distinctive genus Huenella above mentioned, but by others known to 
occur in the Cambrian faunas elsewhere in the southern hemisphere. 
1 “ Evidence of the Existence of a Cambrian Fauna in Victoria.” Proc. R. Soc. Viet., vol. VIII. 
(N.S.), 1896, pp. 52-64. 
s Loc. cit., p. 55. 
* Geol. Surv. Viet., Monthly Prog. Rep., No. 11, 1900, p. 23. 
4 Proc. R. Soc. Viet., vol. XXI. (N.S.), pt. I., 1908, p. 341. Cf. idem. Rep. Aust. Assoc. Adv. Sel., 
Brisbane, 1909, p. 177. 
* Proc. R. Soc. Viet., pt. II. (N.S.), 1903, pp. 148-175, pis. XXIII.-XXVI. 
* Loc. cit., p. 155, pi. XXVI. 
7 “ On Some Brachiopods and a Bivalve from Heathcote.” Rec. Geol. Surv. Viet., vol. I., pt- 3, 
1904, pp. 222-6, pi. XXI. 
