444 



NA TURE 



{Sept. 4, 1884 



by comparison with the plants and animals known from European 

 formations. 



Jabalpur 

 Kota 

 Maleri . 



Middle J 



Middle J 



Middle ( 

 Jurass 



I-'h.etic 



Uppermost Jura 

 Lower Jura ssic(Li; 



Triassic or Permian 

 Middle Jurassic 



Flora of Tonquin. — Quite recently M. Zeiller has described a 

 series of plants from some coal-bearing beds in Tonquin [Bull. 

 Soc. Geo/, ser. iii. vol. xi. p. 456). This flora is very extraordi- 

 nary in every respect. It consists of twenty-two species, and 

 contains only two peculiar forms ; ten, or nearly one-half, are 

 European species found in the Lower Lias or Rhaetic ; whilst of the 

 remaining ten, five are Damuda form-, Noeggcrathiopsis hislopi, 

 Macrottzniopteris feddeni, Palteovittaria kurzi, Glossopteris brown- 

 iana, and Pin Hot hem indica, one species being common to the 

 Newcastle beds and Carboniferous flora of Australia, and two 

 others closely allied to the forms there occurring. The other five 

 are said to be Rajmahal forms, four Tteniopteris or Angiopteridzum 

 and an Otozamites. M. Zeiller unhesitatingly classes the Tonquin 

 beds as Rhsetic. It is most singular that these coal-beds, although 

 more distant from Europe by 18° of longitude than either the 

 Damuda or Rajmahal beds of India, contain a larger proportion 

 of European fossil species than any known Indian plant-beds ; 

 whilst the association in the same strata of upper and lower 

 Gondwana forms, if well ascertained, shows how hopeless is the 

 attempt to classify these deposits by plant evidence alone. 



Australian Coal-Measures an I Associated Beds. — In the notice 

 of the lower Gondwana floras of India it was observed that there 

 was a great resemblance between some of them and those found 

 111 certain beds of Australia. These latter present even a more 

 remarkable instance of homotaxial perversity than do the Indian 

 rocks. The Australian plant-bearing beds are found in Eastern 

 and Southern Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania. For a 

 knowledge of the geology of the country we are chiefly indebted 

 to the writings of the late Mr. Clarke, 1 whilst the flora has been 

 worked out by McCoy, Dana. Carruthers, and Feistmantel, the 

 latter having recently published a much more complete account 

 than was previously available {Palaontographica, — Pal. u. mes. 

 Flora ilc-s b'stl. Australien, J.S7S-79). 



The following are the fresh-water or subaerial beds of Australia, 

 according to the latest classification : — 



6. Clarence Riverbeds, New South Wales (Mesozoic carbona- 

 ceous of Queensland, Victoria, and Tasmania). 



5. Wianamatta beds, M.S. Wales. 



4. Hawkesbury beds, N. S. Wales (Bacchus Marsh sandstones, 

 Victoria). 



3. Newcastle beds, N.S. Wales. 



2. Lower Coal-Measures witli marine layers interstratified, 

 N.S. Wales. 



I. Lower Carboniferous beds, N.S. Wales. 



To a still lower horizon probably belong some beds in Queens- 

 land, containing Lepidodendron nothum and Cy r t. They 

 are considered Lievonian by Carruthers, and there are some ancient 

 plant-beds in Victoria that may be of the same period. 



1. Lower Carboniferous Beds.- -These underlie the beds with a 

 Carboniferous marine fauna. The localities given are Smith's 

 Creek, near Stroud. Port Stephens, and Arowa. The following 

 plants are enumerated : — 



Lycopodiace^E. — Cyclostigma, 1 sp. ; Lepidodendron, 2 or 3 ; 



Kuorria, I. 

 Filices. — Rhacopteris, 4 ; Archaopteris, 2 (?) ; Glossopte- 

 ris, 1. 

 I\'.'t [SETACE E. — Catamites, 2; Sphmophyllum, I. 

 This flora contains several species identical with those in lite 

 Lower Carboniferous (Bernician) of Europe, corresponding to 

 the mountain limestone. The agreement both in homotaxis and 

 position is the more remarkable because of the startling contrast 



' Q T. G S. i85i, p. 354. andJf<r 

 of New South Wales, 1878, besides 



irks on the Sedimentary Formations 



in the next stage. The only peculiarity is the presence of a Glos- 

 sopteris. This comes from a different locality — Arowa — from 

 most "f the f< issils, and the species is identical with one found in a 

 much higher series. Under these circumstances it is impossible 

 to feel satisfied that the specimen was really from this horizon. 

 file evidence is not so clear as is desirable. 



2. Lower Coal Measures with Marine Beds. — The following 

 plants are recorded : — 



Cvcadeace.se. — Noeg'erathiopsis, 1 sp. 



Filices. — Glossopu ris, 4. 



Equisetace.E. — Annularia, 1; Phyllotheca, I. 



In the marine beds, which are interstratified, are tound Lower 

 Carboniferous (mountain limestone) marine fossils in abundance, 

 such as Orthoceras, Spirifer, Fen -Stella, Conn/ana, &c. The 

 plants belong to forms declared to be typically Jurassic by 

 palceontologists. As the interstratification of the marine and 

 plant-bearing beds has been repeatedly questioned by palaeonto- 

 logists, it is necessary to point out that the geological evidence 

 brought forward by Mr. Clarke is of the clearest and most con- 

 vincing character, that this evidence has been confirmed by 

 all the geologists who are acquainted with the country, and 

 has only been doubted by those who have never been near the 

 place. 



;. Newcastle Beds. — By all previous observers in the field these 

 had been united to the preceding and the flora declared to be the 

 same. Dr. Feistmantel has, however, pointed out important dif- 

 ferences. Unfortunately, as he has been unable to examine the 

 beds, it still remain-, uncertain whether the distinction, which has 

 been overlooked by all the field geologists, is quite so great as 

 it appears from the list of fossils given. The following is the 

 flora : — 



Conifer.e. — Brachyphyllum, 1 sp. 



CycadeaCE<<E. — Zeugophyltites. 1 ; iVoegg, ralhiopsis, 3. 



Filices. — Sphenopterls, 4; Glossopteris, 8; Gangamopteris, 2 : 

 Cauloptei-is (?), 1. 



EquisetacE/E. — Phyllo'heca, 1 : Vtrtebraria, 1. 



The only animal known from the beds is a heterocercal ganoid 

 fish, Urosthenes australis, a form with Upper Palaeozoic affini- 

 ties. 



It will be noticed that the difference from the flora of the 

 underlying beds associated with marine strata is chiefly specific, 

 and by no means indicative of great difference of age, though the 

 only species considered as common to the two by Dr. Feistmantel 

 is Glossopteris browniana, found also in the Damuda series of 

 India, in Tonquin, and in South Africa. 



The plant fossils of the Newcastle beds and of the underlying 

 series with marine fossils are those which exhibit so remarkable a 

 similarity to the flora of the Indian lower Gondw anas, and especi- 

 ally to the Damudas. The same genera of plants, especially Noeg- 

 gerathiopsis, Glossopteris, Phyllotheca, Vertehrar a, prevail in both. 

 but the lower beds of Australia, to judge by the marine fauna, 

 ne of Lower Carboniferous age, and it is impossible to suppose 

 that the Newcastle beds are of very much later date. They are 

 said to be comformable to the lower beds with marine fossils, and 

 even to pass into them, and they should probably, if the lower 

 beds are Lower Carboniferous, be classed as Middle or Upper 

 Carboniferous. Thus if the evidence of marine faunas be ac- 

 cepted as decisive, the Damuda beds of India are homotaxially 

 related to Jurassic strata in Europe and to Carboniferous in 

 Australia. 



But the Australian Newcastle flora has been quite as positively 

 classed as Jurassic by European pakx'obotanisls as that of the 

 Damudas. It would be easy to quote a long list of authorities — 

 McCoy, I 'e Zigno, Saporta, Schimper, Carruthers, and others — 

 in support of the Jurassic age of the Australian beds. For years 

 the testimony of Australian geologists was rejected, and doubts 

 thrown upon their observations. There is, so far as I know, no 

 case in the whole history of palaeontology in which the conflict 

 of pakeontological evidence has been so remarkably displayed. 



4. Hawkesbury Beds. — The fauna and flora are poor. Only two 

 fish, Clithrolepis granulatus and Myriolepis clarkei, and one plant, 

 'fhinnfeldia odontopteroides, are known, and of the three forms 

 two recur in the Wianamatta beds. 



An important character of the Hawkesbury beds, to which 

 further reference will be ma ie presently, is the occurrence of 

 transported boulders (Wilkinson, quoted by Feistmantel, Pec. 

 Geol. Sum. Ind. 1SS0, p. 257), apparently brought thither by 

 the action of ice. 



Similar boulders have been observed in certain sandstones in 



