Xote on the Rev. Mr. Clarke's " Remarks" ^r. 215 



Art. XlY.—No/e on the Rev. Mr. Clarke's " Remarks," ^c. 

 By Professor McCoy. 



[Read before the Royal Society, Dec. 10th, 18G0.] 



I WISH to avoid all irrelevant matter, and to re-direct atten- 

 tion to the real point at issue, namely : — iNIr. Clarke holds 

 and has always held that the " Glossopteris beds" associated 

 with the coal of Xew South "Wales are palrcozoic, and helong 

 to the same geological epoch as the underlying marine beds 

 containing lower carboniferous animal remains. I hold and 

 have always held that the aforesaid " Glossopteris beds" are 

 mesozoic, and that there is a great geological interval separat- 

 ing them from the carboniferous or mountain limestone series 

 of marine fossiliferous beds l)elow them. 



]Mr. Clarke admits the identity I have dwelt upon between 

 the "Glossopteris beds" of New South Wales, India, Africa, 

 and Virginia. Baron de Zigno has drawn, in the present 

 year, the relation much closer than before between all these 

 and the plant beds of the oolitic series of the Venetian Alps 

 and Yorkshire ; and not one of the references of Mr. Clarke 

 gives the slightest color to Ms view of their being i^alceozoic. 



I shoul^ Avish to stop here, but am constrained to touch 

 the points in Islx. darkens " Remarks" in the order given. 



1st. The remark that his reference to 6 instead of 23 species 

 of plants in the Glossopteris beds of Ncav South "Wales alluded 

 only to Tceniopteris , may be compared with the original pas- 

 sage, bearing in mind that there are not six species of fossil 

 Australian Tceniopteris to refer to, but only one, and that dis- 

 puted by him. 



2nd. The remark on the absence of oolitic animal fossils in 

 Virginia, overlooks the circumstance that I pointed out the 

 fact in answer to his objection that we could not have oolitic 

 plants in Australia, where no animal fossils of that age had 

 been found, the age of the A'irginian (Richmond) coal-beds 

 being determined by the plants. The argumentative way in 

 which Mr. Bunl)ury's saying " that the Kichmond coal-field 

 might as avcU be referred to the triassic as to the Jurassic 

 series" is put forth here, would seem to imply that the triassic 

 was a pahcozoic formation ; it is, of course, unnecessary for 

 me to say that this is not the case. Several triassic species 



