OF CENTRAL INDIA AND BENGAL. 203 



remains to be done in this respect.* We have long since noticed that 

 the group A. of Mr. Hislop's series probably was representative of the 

 Mahadeva of our classification,! a view now adopted by Mr. Hislop 

 himself, although partly on independent evidence ; we have also 

 noticed the probable identity of his group B. (" laminated sandstone, 

 &c.,) with the Damuda of our series, but with doubts as to whether 

 two distinct groups have not been included in one. But in either case 

 I do not as yet see that there is any conclusive evidence for admitting 

 more than this probability. We rejoice to see that Sir Charles Bunbury 

 has taken up the examination of the plants collected by Messrs. Hislop 

 and Hunter, and we look with great interest for his description. As 

 yet we have only his nominal list of genera and species, J but even this 

 seems to us, if the references are borne out by further examination, to 

 bear out the palseozoic age of the rocks. Excluding all those which 

 are Indian (or Australian) Glossopteris, &c., we find " Pecopteris like 

 P. Pluckenetii" e NceggerathiaJ Knorria (?) Stigmaria (?) stem some- 

 what Sigillarian in appearance, " Yuccites (?)" a group which certainly 

 has more relations with the carboniferous flora of Europe than with 

 the Oolitic. And the evidence altogether has led Mr. Hislop himself 

 to qualify his opinion as to the age of these rocks, for he now concludes 

 that, on the whole " they probably represent the Jurassic (or possibly 

 the Triassic) period, at all events some portion of the Lower Mesozoic 

 epoch."§ 



* We can scarcely reconcile the statement that the upper and laminated sandstones are 

 " conformable," with the evidence of great denudation, and exposure of the lower beds given 

 by the blocks of these beds, containing fossils, found in the upper series. — Q. J. G. S. L., 1859, 

 p. 156. 



f I must here protest against the error of Mr. Hislop's statement (Quar. Jour. Geol. Soc. 

 London, 1859, June 15th, p. 165), that the term " Mahadeva Sandstone" was introduced by 

 me in any way whatever " to supersede the loose designation of diamond sandstone." The 

 MaKadeva group has nothing whatever to do with the diamond sandstone, is not synchronous 

 with it, and the identity can only have existed in imagination. 



% Proceedings Geol. Soc. London, March 20, 1861. 

 § Ibid. March 20, 1861. 



