Before Laube wrote, the Rev. Julian Woods[1] had noticed the Hemipatagus as a Spatangus; and I had described it, calling it Hemipatagus Forbesi[2], Woods and Duncan. Two or three other Echinida were also noticed by Mr. Woods and myself.
In August 1875[3] Mr. B,. Etheridge, jun., F.G.S., described a species of Hemipatagus from the Tertiaries of Victoria, and gave a history of the work done by his predecessors, and also a most interesting essay, to which was added a list of species.
Whilst these years were elapsing, progress was made in the Geological Survey of South Australia and Victoria; and Daintree, Etheridge, Aplin, Ulrich, Wilkinson[4], and others under Selwyn, and, independently of all, Mr. Woods, described and mapped the Tertiary deposits. The general relations of the Mount-Gambier, Glenelg, Murray, Hamilton, Muddy-Creek, Cape-Otway, and Port-Phillip's-Bay (Mordialloc) Tertiaries were thus determined, and their fossils were collected.
In 1864 and 1865[5] I described several species of Madreporaria from the Tertiaries; and in 1870, after having had the details of the Cape-Otway section sent to me, and a very large collection of corals also, by Mr. Selwyn, I communicated an essay to this Society on the Madreporaria of the Australian Tertiary deposits[6]. The geology of the Tertiaries was given in that paper, and their local and general correlation also. The recent Australian fauna of Echinoderms had been gradually described; and collections had been made contemporaneously with the geological researches, so that the great difficulties in the path of the student of the Echini were removed[7]; moreover the position of the fossil specimens was decided, and they can now be compared with the recent types.
For several years I have been receiving a few specimens of Echinida from different Australian Tertiary deposits; and lately a large number have been examined by me from the collection of the Geological Society, the British Museum, and from that of H. M. Jenkins, Esq., F.G.S., most of the fossils of the last named having been collected with great care. The number of species is not great; but it is sufficient to stamp the fauna with a very peculiar facies, and to indicate that the particular characteristic of the existing fauna was not present in the past, that the facies is older than that of most deposits of similar age, and that a part of it is decidedly modern in appearance, there being but slight differences between the ancient and a part of the existing fauna.
As the details of the sections whence the fossils now described came, and which have yielded most of those determined by Woods,
- ↑ Geological Observations in South Australia. 1862.
- ↑ Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. (1864), ser. 3, vol. xiv. p. 165.
- ↑ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxxi. p. 444.
- ↑ Reports of Geological Survey of Victoria.
- ↑ Ann. and Mag. of Nat. Hist. ser. 3, vols. xiv. and xvi.
- ↑ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxvi. p. 284.
- ↑ Gray, 'Cat. Echini Brit. Mus.;' A. Agassiz, 'Revision of the Echini,' 1872–1874.
