Mr. Clarke's Communication, h^c. 105 



I now, with much reluctance, approach the most disagree- 

 able part of my task. On the publication of my results, as 

 above quoted, Mr. Clarke, as he states in the paragraph of 

 his paper we have now reached, wrote to the English jour- 

 nals, asking geologists to suspend their judgment — the point 

 going against him ; and, shortly after, he -vn'ote to a leading- 

 geologist and mutual friend, to this effect : '' Mr. McCoy^s 

 " most powerful argument against my view of the palaeozoic 

 " age of our Newcastle coal-beds, is founded on the supposed 

 " absence of all the characteristic genera of true coal-measui'e 

 " plants. I should like to have his opinion of the enclosed fossil, 

 " which I think will satisfy him.'' My opinion on the fossil 

 enclosed was, that it was a distinct species of one of the 

 sections of Lepidodendron, clearly indicative of the true 

 palajozoic coal epoch ; to which I added the reasons for my 

 equally strong opinion that it never came from the beds 

 we were arguing about. Every one avIio saw Mr. Clarke's 

 letter thought it impossible to doubt his meaning, that 

 the fossil he sent to upset my objection that no coal- 

 measure plants had been seen in certain beds, came from 

 those beds; as I was positive, however, the pointed ques- 

 tions were put to him — " Did you find the specimen your- 

 " self, and did it come from the actiial beds which afforded the 

 " other plants on which the dispute turns ? " The tardy 

 admissions were thus extracted from him : — That the 

 specimen of Lepidodendron had been given him by an 

 unscientific friend, and came from a geologically un- 

 known locality far to the north, in the country uoav 

 called Queensland ; so, that instead of invalidating my 

 conclusions, my views were strengthened by the proof, 

 that the palaeozoic and oolitic coal formations might be 

 found near together in Australia (as in England and 

 America), each with characteristic distinctive palaeontology; 

 and here, as in Virginia, the vague baseless supposition 

 (revived in the present communication of Mr. Clarke), that 

 the geographical distance from the European types might 

 have caused the palaeozoic formations to assmne the palaeon- 

 tological characters of the oolitic ones, falls to the ground 

 as unsupported by new facts, as by induction from the old 

 ones. Mr. Clarke, in his present communication, says : — 

 " Others besides myself liave found some of the missing true 

 " coal-plants, and I am now in a position to point out six localities 

 "in this colony and in Queensland where they are to be 

 " found." On which I remark, that they are not, however. 



