﻿Correspondence — Mr. W. T. Blanford. 189 



•GoNDWAisTA System (not, as I wrote, " G-ondwana Series"). 



a. Upper portion of the Gondwana System. 



" Kachh-Jabalpiir Group'' (not Kachh Series, as I wrote) ; "Eaj- 

 mahal Group" (not, as I wrote, Rajmahal Series),^ etc. 



h. Loiver portion of the Gondwana System. 



" Pancliet Group" — " Damuda Series" (not, as I wrote, Damuda 

 Group, as it consists itself of several groups, as, Kamthi-Raaigunj 

 group. Iron-shales, Barakur Group : this, however, only stratigraphi- 

 cally). 



" Talchir Group" (considered by me to be a lower portion of the 

 Damuda Series). 



In the chapter on the fossils of the Panchet Group {I. c. p. 486) I 

 have to add that Prof. Huxley, although considering the vertebrate 

 fossils as probably Triassic, found also some affinities with certain 

 Permian forms ; but the closest connexion is still with the Triassic (?) 

 South African reptilian remains. And here, in India, we have, as 

 additional evidence, throughout a Triassic (Keuperic) Flora, which 

 leaves little doubt that our Panchet Group, in comparison with already 

 known formations, is to be considered as what is termed in Europe 

 "Keuper." This, of course, is not intended to prove that both are 

 contemporaneous. It proves only identity of forms, and therefore the 

 some homotaxial position. 



I write this note especially because it should not seem that I have 

 intentionally left out half of the arguments. I thought, however, to 

 have said enough by referring to Prof. Huxley's important paper on 

 the reptilian remains from the Panchet group, where he has himself 

 so thoroughly discussed their affinities. 



There are also some serious errata in the text, which should be cor- 

 rected, namely : 



On p. 485, line 5, for " with European Triassic forms," read 

 "European Jurassic beds" (for the only beds in Kachh are Jurassic). 



On p. 487, line 12, omit "perhaps" (because there are certainly 

 similar forms in Africa). 



On p. 489, line 33, for " Fteroph. Carteriamcin,'^ read " Pteroph. 

 Morrisianiim.''^ Dr. Ottoeae Eeistmantel, 



Calcutta, lUh Dec. 1876. Geol. Survey of India. 



DR. FEISTMANTEL'S PAPER ON THE GONDWANA SERIES. 

 Sir, — Even a scientific controversy, if prolonged, tends to become 

 less amicable than it should be, and I shall therefore not attempt to 

 reply at length to Dr. Feistmantel's remarks in his paper on the 

 Gondwana Series of India, published in the Geological Magazine 

 for November, 1876. I will only beg that any one who feels 

 interested in the subject will do me the honour of consulting my 

 original paper in the Eecords of the Geological Survey of India 

 for 1876, pt. iii. pp. 79-85, because I do not think that a just idea 

 of my views or of the objects of my paper will be derived from 



1 This was the former collective name for the whole upper portion of the Gondwana 

 system, as used by Dr. Oldham ; but there are certainly several ditferent groups. 



