Remarks on Profesaoj' McCoy's Commentary. 211 



Morris lias determined a series of plants from the Dicyuodon 

 strata to he either triassic or Jurassic. 



So thoroughly indistinct is the settlement of the question 

 in all quarters, as refers to the occurrence of those plants 

 which Mr. INIcCoy asserts cannot be here otherwise than 

 oolitic. "What Mr. Morris says of the Dicynodon strata 

 plants, Mr. Bun])ury says of the Richmond plants; and, 

 therefore, I consider that, even if my own ideas be alto- 

 gether erroneous, the question is not necessarily settled, as 

 the "Commentary" would have it. 



I am next assailed on the ground of my allusion to j\lr. 

 Jukes, who, if not a " Palaeontologist," is the author of an 

 excellent manual, in which he folloAvs Brown. Both, Mr. 

 jN'IcCoy considers mistaken ; the places I am very sarcastically 

 referred to in Mr. Jukes' book were all marked down in my 

 own copy, and I had ticked off, as references, the respective 

 pages one against the other; I was^ therefore, aware of all 

 the Professor mentions; but, nevertheless, I considered 

 myself justified in quoting Brown^ Mr. Jukes' references to 

 whom 1 ha^■e verified. 



I am much obliged for INIr. McCoy's " better list of the 

 distribution of clearly ascertained species of Taeniopteris ;" 

 and only regret that he had not given the inibrmation with- 

 out calling in question any other person's sagacity. 



" In the next paragraph," Mr. McCo}^ criticises what I say 

 of Phillips' Geology of Yorkshire, and accuses me of mis- 

 stating a fact, viz., that in his book there is no figure of Tse- 

 niopteris. 



If Mr. INIcCoy had the figure of T. vittata in Phillips' book, 

 then it is not in my {2nd 1835) edition; for the figure 

 t. 8, f. 5, is therein named " ScoJopcndrimn sotitarium," and 

 I have mentioned that, though INIorris classes this as T. vittata, 

 Goppert calls it an '' Aspiditcs." Certainly, as my knowledge 

 has not yet extended to the rejection of Goppert's determi- 

 nations by "■ all more modern Avriters," Mr. McCoy might 

 have saved himself the trouble of wrongly accusing me of a 

 misquotation. 



But i\Ir. ]McCoy himself has (I hope unwittingly) made an 

 incorrect statement in his version of the fifth paragraph of 

 my letter; for ^Ir. Dana did not visit the Australian locali- 

 ties since Mr. McCoy wrote his i)aper on my fossils, but eight 

 or ten years before, in 1839; consequently his getting more 

 fossils ivithout altering Mr. McCoy's views, was simply an 



