204 GEOLOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE ROCK SYSTEMS 



The marked break between the " Rajmahal," and the Damuda rocks, 

 as proved by the total change in their flora, has now, to a certain extent, 

 been filled up by the establishment, by Mr. Blanford in the preceding 

 report, of the Panchet group or sub-division intermediate between 

 the two. Mr. Blanford has also very clearly shown how the physical 

 evidence of the districts tends to unite this group with the Damuda 

 series below, rather than with any series above it. The uncon- 

 formity between them is but slight, (in truth such as would never 

 probably have been noticed, were the change from one group to another 

 not marked by a change in mineral character of the rocks,) and the 

 Panchet group has been subjected to the same disturbances and intru- 

 sions of trap as the Damudas below, while the beds above are free from 

 these. Seeing then that while intermediate it is physically more con- 

 nected with the beds below than with those above, it becomes interest- 

 ing to examine its fossil contents a little more in detail. 



We have already noticed the abundant occurrence of Estheria 

 minuta ; and also the existence of the reptilian remains of Labyrin- 

 thodons, and Dicynodons. There remain then only the plants. 



The flora of the Panchet beds is, so far as known, very limited, not 

 yielding more than six or eight varieties in all. Of this number there 

 are, Schizoneura, 1. Taniopteris, 1. Sphenopteris, 2. Neuropteris? 

 1. Pecopteris?. (2) Preissleria, 1. There are a few mutilated and 

 drifted fragments beside, one of which (fragment of one side of a 

 frond) shows the existence of Glossopteris, undistinguishable save 

 generically. Of the genera noticed above, Schizoneura is one of the 

 most abundant, and is common to the Damuda rocks below, (the species 

 seem distinct.) It is a truly Triassic plant in Europe. Sphenopteris, 

 Neuropteris, To&niopteris, are common to both Mesozoic and Pala> 

 zoic rocks,* although the latter was more abundant in Mesozoic 



* I erroneously stated that Tceniopteris was " only known in Mesozoic and Cainozoic 

 rocks" (Vol. II. p. 320) forgetting at the moment that Gutbier and Geinitz had described it 

 from the Permian of Saxony. That paper having been printed during my absence, some few 



