Revieics — Geological Sitrvey of India. 315 



transported by ice or rafted among the roots of trees. The break 

 which this would establish in the Himalayan series seems hitherto 

 to have escaped all observers — but the field is a wide one. 



The next paper by the same author is entirely palgeontological. 

 It records the most important and interesting additions to the 

 Siwalik mammalian fauna made by Mr. Theobald from the rocks of 

 the Eawul Pindi plateau during the preceding season as well as 

 some from Sind collected by Messrs. Blanford and Fedden. Correc- 

 tions of previous determinations are also given. 



Among the genera noticed and described are, Macacus, Mastodon, 

 Stegodon, Dinotherium, Hyotherium, Antliracotherium, EJiagatherium, 

 Choeromeryx, Merycopotamus — like animals, Sus, Camelopardalis, 

 Mydaspitherium, Bhinoceros, Listriodon, Hystrix, Bhizomys, Felis, 

 Bycena, Mellivora, Meles (?), Amphicyon, Hycenarctos, and an alleged 

 Cetacean earbone considered by Professor Flower to belong to the 

 Ungidata. 



One of the most important contributions to the number is Mr. W. 

 T. Blanford's paper on the palseontological relations of the Gond- 

 wana system, a reply to Dr. Feistmantel's many recent papers on 

 the same subject. Mr. Blanford is, on the whole, courteous, if severe, 

 and has taken much pains to examine critically the arguments of his 

 colleague, who is charged with making an undue use of the principle 

 of selection in regard to his comparisons between the Indian Gond- 

 wana and European Mesozoic flora; indeed, it is stated that he 

 employs no evidence among the mass available except that which 

 tells in favour of his own view. 



Mr. Blanford disclaims the intention to set himself up as a palseo- 

 botanist, still he has sought and found evidence to form an easily 

 appreciable list of plants from the European Bunter, the Indian 

 Damuda (Lower Gondwana), and the Newcastle beds of Australia, 

 in parallel columns, which points to a very different result from that 

 arrived at by Dr. Feistmantel as to the Mesozoic age of this part of 

 the Gondwana formation. 



The paper is a long one, and requires to be read to grasp its 

 importance. The conclusions arrived at by the author, shortly 

 stated, are — 1st, that the evidence adduced by Dr. Feistmantel as to 

 the Umia beds of Kach (with Trigonia Smeii, and T. ventricosa, etc.) 

 not being Upper Jurassic is insufficient and incorrect ; 2nd, that the 

 proof for the Eajmahal group being Lias is also insufficient ; 3rd, 

 that the Panchet group and the Keuper have not been sufficiently 

 shown of the same age or related by homotaxis ; 4th, that the 

 evidence on which the Mangli beds are classed as Ehsetic and newer 

 than the Panchets is based upon various mistakes and omissions ; 

 5th, that if the affinities of the plant-fossils with those in European 

 rocks were alone regarded, the whole Gondwana system above the 

 Karharbari group would be probably classed as of an age from 

 Middle Jurassic to Ehsetic, and the Lower Gondwana Damuda flora 

 as newer than the Upper Gondwana Eajmahal, both Eajmahal and 

 Panchet beds being, according to Dr. Feistmantel, most closely 

 affined by homotaxis to the Eh^tio minor European formation, 



