JOHILLA COAL-FIELD. 



39 



I believe that in the running" trials the Johilla coal was stated to have 

 shown a slight superiority, but it is difficult to reconcile this assertion 

 with the deduction to be drawn from the analyses. 



Considering the distinct advantage in fixed carbon possessed by the 

 Umaria coal, the latter ought to have been the 



Umana and Johilla 



coal probably alike iu better fuel. Eventually, when both seams are cut 



quality. 



into, under a moderate amount of covering, I 

 have no doubt that they will give very even returns. There is sulphur 

 in all the coal. 



A third boring marked on the map as III was instituted to prove a 



, small out-crop in the Dhobghata Nala : but after 



Dbobghata boring. 



going through 153 feet of successive sandstones, 

 the rods were withdrawn, the conclusion being that the coal was 

 ephemeral. 



Below the junction of the Bichna and the Dhobghata, there is a band 

 of coaly shale, but no coal. In the bed under it some specimens of 

 Glossopteris were procured. 



In several places plants were discovered. Three species were obtained 

 below the seam in the Johilla river — Glossopteris 



Fossils. 



communis, Gangumopteris comp. cyclopteroides, 

 and "Noggerathiopsis hislopi. From the Kudri feeder of the Dhobghata 

 Nala, seven species — Vertebraria indica, Glossopteris communis, Glossopteris 

 indica, Glossopteris browninna, Glossopteris damudica, Gangumopteris, sp. 

 Noggerathiopsis hislopi. From the head waters of the Dhobghata 

 stream, and not far from the village of Amadongri, eight species — Glos- 

 sopteris indica, Glossopteris tcenioides, Glossopteris angusti 'folia, Gunga- 

 mopferis angustifolia, Gungamopteris cyclopteroides, Gangumopteris sub- 

 auriculata, Samaropsis, comp. parvula, Noggerathiopsis hislopi. 



Dr. Feistmantel points out, with reference to these forms, that 

 they correspond to the association of fossils found with the second and 

 third seams of the Karharbari coal-field. That there is this correspon- 

 dence is clear enough, but I have hitherto failed to see anything dis- 

 tinctive enough in the character of the rocks containing this partial 

 Karharbari flora to warrant a separation from the Barakar. 



( 175 ) 



