The Invertebrate Fauna of the Uitenhage Series. 29 



Seward, in his memoir on the subject," has shown that the Uiten- 

 hage plants "include types in part characteristic of Wealden and 

 in part indicative of Jurassic floras"; but he believes that the 

 balance of evidence derived from the plants is in favour of a 

 Wealden age. 



We thus see that recent authoritative opinions have lent strong 

 confirmation to the views of the earliest writers who made a study 

 of this fauna. Other works in which less critical reference has been 

 made to the age of the Uitenhage Series may now be briefly noticed. 



In 1857, W. G. Atherstone suggested the partly Jurassic and 

 partly Cretaceous age of the Uitenhage beds, I but Andrew Wyley, 

 in 1859, placed the Enon Beds so low as the New Bed Sandstone, 

 and correlated the Sunday's Eiver Beds with the Jurassic (Oolites). J 



Feistmantel evidently shared Tate's view of an Oolitic age when 

 he tried to show affinities between certain Mollusca from the Uiten- 

 hage beds and others from the Oomia Group in Cutch in order to 

 prove the Lower Oolitic age of the Oomia fauna and bring about 

 harmony between the evidence for age furnished by the plants and 

 animals from those beds. In a correlation of the Indian and African 

 Mesozoic formations the same author also tabulated the Uitenhage 

 Series as Jurassic. || G. W. Stow divided the formation into a 

 "Lower Jurassic" and an "Upper Jurassic" series.*! In 1878 

 W r . T. Blanford, basing his view upon a study of Tate's and Stow's 

 papers, concluded that the beds containing Hamites yielded too large 

 a number of Middle Jurassic forms for reference to the Neocomian; 

 but he believed them to represent a very high Jurassic horizon, 

 while pointing out that Trigonia ventricosa and T. van were still 

 higher. ** 



In 1880 Griesbach classed the Uitenhage beds as Jurassic,! t while 

 the same view was adopted by T. Eupert Jones in 1884 J } and by 

 Moulle in the following year. Even so recently as 1897, Futterer 

 has accepted Sharpe's and Tate's conclusions. || || On the other hand, 

 Gurich,1i f ,i Schenck,*** and Molengraaff 1 1 1 have referred these beds 



* Seward (1), p. 46. t Atherstone (1), pp. 584, 588. 



I Wyley (1). [I have not seen Wyley 's Keport, but his correlation is set forth 

 in Tate (1), p. 172, and Corstorphine (1), Appendix.] 



Feistmantel (1). || Feistmantel (4), pp. 54, 59, 84. 



T Stow (1). ** W. T. Blanford (1), p. 118. 



ft Griesbach (1), pp. 90, 93. JJ Jones (1) ; Jones (2), p. 737. 



Moulle (1), p. 216. Illl Futterer (1), p. 625. 



ITU Giirich (1). *** Schenck (1), p. 231. 



ttt Molengraaff (1). [I have not been able to see this work, but quote the 

 statement and reference on the authority of Newton (2), p. 146.] 



