252 ME. W. T. BLANFOED O:^ THE OCCTJEEENCE OE 



1874, pointed out that the Talchirs were probably contemporaneous 

 with the Ecca beds. 



In 1861 the late Dr. T. Oldham noticed the resemblance between 

 specimens from the lower marine beds of Australia and the Talchir 

 beds of India. He pointed out that not onfy are both bluish-green 

 silty beds, but that they further resemble each other in the presence 

 of pebbles and large rolled masses in fine silt. This point of resem- 

 blance was noticed by my brother, Mr. H. P. Blanford *, but has not 

 generally been alluded to in the discussion of late years f, probably 

 because it had never been confirmed by any one who examined 

 the beds in situ until Mr. E-. Oldham did so. 



In 1866 Dr. A. E. C. Selwyn and the late Sir E. Daintree + found 

 a bed containing boulders of considerable dimensions at a spot called 

 Bacchus Marsh in South Australia. The bed yielded some fossil 

 plants allied to Glossojpteris, and described by Prof. M'^Coy as 

 Gmigamopteris, a genus found also in the Australian Newcastle beds 

 and in the Talchir and Damuda series of India. 



In 1878 Mr. C. S. Wilkinson § discovered large transported 

 boulders in the Hawkesbury series. Dr. Peistmantel || classed this 

 and the Bacchus-Marsh beds as contemporaneous with each other, 

 and also with the Indian Talchir and the South-African Ecca beds. 



I believe the above are the most important links that had so far 

 been forged in the chain of evidence, and I now proceed to the 

 additional information just obtained. 



In Mr, E. Oldham's recent visit to Australia, he has ascertained that 

 striated pebbles and boulders occur in the Carboniferous marine beds 

 both above and below the Stony-Creek beds. He says : — " Blocks of 

 slate, quartzite, and crystalline rocks, for the most part subangular, 

 are found scattered through a matrix of fine sand or shale, and these 

 latter beds contain delicate FenesteUce and bivalve shells with the 

 valves still united, showing that they had lived, died, and been 

 tranquilly preserved where they are now found, and proving, as con- 

 clusively as the matrix in which they are preserved, that they could 

 never have been exposed to any current of sufficient force and 

 rapidity to transport the blocks now found lying side by side with 

 them. These included fragments of rock are of all sizes from a few 

 inches to several feet in diameter." Mr. Wilkinson had seen in 

 these same beds boulders of slate &c., the dimensions of which might 



* L. c. p. 534. 



t Mr. Oldham appears surprised at my not having mentioned this observation 

 of his father in my reply to Dr. Feistmantel (Eec. G. S. I. 1878, p. 104). I was 

 well acquainted with the observation, but I felt and still feel doubtful whether 

 similarity in mineral character can be used as evidence of age, and I do 

 not attach much importance to deductions as to physical characters unless 

 made from examination of the beds in the field. It must be remembered also 

 that no evidence of glacial action in the beds of New South Wales was then 

 available. 



\ Report on the Geology of the District of BaUan, Melbourne, 1866, p. 10. I 

 take from Mr. Oldham's paper this and the next reference to Australian 

 literature. 



§ Trans. Roy. Soc. K S. W. vol. xiii. p. 105. 



II Rec. a. S. I. 1880, p. 250. 



