92 Rev. W. B. Clarke's Communication on 



seams in tlie very heart of his mountain limestone fossils, and 

 that plants known in the Newcastle beds, which he calls 

 oolitic, were found at the very bottom of the whole series of 

 these newly-opened beds, containing the mountain limestone 

 fossils. 



Whilst, then, such is the case, I look with great interest, 

 but with great suspicion, on any alleged discovery of true 

 Jurassic or oolitic evidence, in the small patchy coal formation 

 in Victoria. 



And as Avhat I saw in the museum of so-called Glossopteris 

 Browniana, from Darley and Bacchus INIarsh, did not appear 

 to me to be certain evidence of tlie species even, I do not yet 

 know how far even that genus, aided now by Taniopterls, 

 will go to establish the probability of the supposition in 

 question. 



At the same time, I have no wish to speak otherwise than 

 respectfully of Professor McCoy's judgment and learning. 

 Only, I wish to know, whether the new plants are really 

 what they are called ? 



"V^^lilst on this topic I would mention, that there is a li\ing 

 genus of ferns in Africa, which Sir W. Hooker calls 

 TcBniopteris , which, however, does not agree with the fossil 

 genus, nor belong, I believe, to the same group. But in 

 India, and in the Islands of the Pacific, there is a genus, 

 Oleandra, which does agree with Brongniart's definition; 

 and which has its fructification like that of Aspidites, under 

 which head I would class many so called Tmiiopte^is. 



I saw some months ago, at Elizabeth Bay, a large collection 

 of ferns fi'om the Pacific, in the collection of my fi-iend Mr. 

 Macleay, and I then recognised the peculiar form and struc- 

 ture which I have mentioned. 



Would it be at all remarkable if every genus, or even many 

 species of genera, of ferns found in our carboniferous forma- 

 tion, whatever its real epoch, should be found in some part 

 of the lands in the Pacific ? 



The fossil mammals are represented by lining forms — 

 why not the fossil plants ? Is it credible, that in the car- 

 boniferous epoch of Europe, though the sea swarmed with 

 the same zoological genera and species, that the land should 

 bear nothing but the identical plants of Europe, in Australia ? 

 Or, is it incredible that in Australia, plants might then exist 

 which did not come into existence in Europe till long after ? 



I have been led to think on this by the discovery recently 



