430 . Correspondence — Mr. A. B. Wynne. 



then one ; also that this classification was made in his own presence, 

 in consultation with himself, without his offering a single objection 

 to it at the time, when specially deputed to assist in the interpreta- 

 tion of the ground. He implies that I treat these local divisions as 

 "real formations equal in importance to ' Silurian, Devonian,' etc. 

 (p. 2)," and says (p. 6) that I appear to have considered the older 

 division of the series " as equivalent to the whole Palasozoic series 

 as it has been defined in Europe and elsewhere." 



So far from these statements being correct, I referred the recog- 

 nizable divisions of the series, on the best palaeontological evidence 

 available, to their general ages as " rock groups " * merely — and not 

 as " formations" with the definite sense Dr. Waagen would attribute 

 to my words, — leaving the ages of the unfossiliferous zones un- 

 certain, distinctly stating, at p. 281, there was no reason to assert 

 the presence of a Devonian group, and pointing out at p. 118 that 

 considerable intervals were left unrepresented. 



Dr. Waagen now classes the Obolns beds, or Silurian zone of my 

 series, with the Productus limestone of his list in one division ; 

 entirely omitting to mention that this Silurian zone was originally 

 founded upon Stoliczka's determination of the fossils I obtained 

 from it, confirmed by himself. 



His statement (foot-note to p. 3) that Dr. Fleming and I con- 

 sidered Terebratula (Waldheimia) Flemingi (belonging to the upper 

 part of the series) to be Carboniferous, is simply without founda- 

 tion, so far as I am concerned (see my Memoir, p. 104, where it is 

 mentioned as coming from a higher stage ; and section, p. 190, 

 No. 11, where a Terebratula supposed to be the same is noticed on 

 the evidence of Dr. Waagen's own notes). I was quite aware of 

 Mr. Davidson's remarks regarding this fossil, but left the settlement 

 of such a point as a matter of course to the Survey palaeontologists. 



Dr. Waagen further accuses me of wrongly grouping his sections, 

 which in all cases I copied from his own dictation in English ; but 

 in one to which he refers at p. 30, owing to his own omission of the 

 groups, I had to supply these from comparison with others. If 

 there are errors in these sections, the fault is his own, and the 

 grouping into which they were thrown at the time is proof of Dr. 

 Waagen's assent to the classification then adopted without reser- 

 vation or condition on his part. 2 



With regard to this classification generally, now altered by Dr. 

 Waagen, it will be observed he gives no reason at present for 

 questioning the accuracy of Stoliczka's (and his own) determination 

 of the Obolus or Siphonotreta, on which the Silurian age of one 

 division was based, preferring to attribute error to myself alone. 



And further, in referring to the peculiar fish teeth from Chel Hill 



1 See chap. iii. of my Memoir referred to. 



2 See his subsequently written paper, Mem. Geol. Surv. Ind. vol. ix. p. 351, 

 where, notwithstanding some uncertainty stated in the text, he uses the words 

 " Carboniferous deposits of the Salt Range " in the title, and indicates elsewhere the 

 Carboniferous affinities of certain fossils of the Range. This shows that the Lower 

 Salt Range limestone was then referred to the Carboniferous period by others on the 

 Indian Survey, as well as by myself. 



