189 
Correspondence — 3fr. TV. T. Blanford. 
Gondwana System (not, as I wrote, “ Gondwana Series ”). 
a. Tipper portion of the Gondwana System. 
“ Kachh-Jabalpur Group” (not Kachh Series, as I wrote); “ Raj- 
mahal Group” (not, as I wrote, Rajmahal Series), 1 etc. 
I. Lower portion of the Gondwana System. 
“ Panchet Group” — “ Damuda Series” (not, as I wrote, Damuda 
Group, as it consists itself of several groups, as, Kamthi-Ranigunj 
group, Iron-shales, Earakur Group : this, however, only stratigraphi- 
cally). 
“Talchir Group” (considered by me to be a lower portion of the 
Damuda Series). 
In the chapter on the fossils of the Panchet Group ( l . c. p. 486) I 
have to add that Prof. Huxley, although considering the vertebrate 
fossils as probably Triassic, found also 6ome affiuities with certain 
Permian forms ; but the closest conuexion is still with the Triassic (?) 
South African reptilian remains. And here, in India, we have, as 
additional evidence, throughout a Triassic (Keuperic) Plora, which 
leaves little doubt that our Panchet Group, in comparison with already 
known formations, is to be considered as what is termed in Europe 
“Keuper.” This, of course, is not intended to prove that both are 
contemporaneous. It proves only identity of forms, and therefore the 
some homotaxial position. 
I write this note especially because it should not seem that I have 
intentionally left out half of the arguments. I thought, however, to 
have said enough by referring to Prof. Huxley’s important paper on 
the reptilian remains from the Panchet group, where he has himself 
so thoroughly discussed their affinities. 
There are also some serious errata in the text, which should be cor- 
rected, namely : 
On p. 485, line 5, for “ with European Triassic forms,” read 
“European Jurassic beds” (for the only beds in Kachh are Jurassic). 
On p. 487, line 12, omit “perhaps” (because there are certainly 
similar forms in Africa). 
On p. 489, line 33, for “ Pteroph. Carterianumf read “ Pteroph. 
Morrisianum Dr. Ottokak Eeistmantel, 
Calcutta, 14<ä Dec. 1876. Geol. Survey of India. 
DR. FEISTMANTEL’ S PAPER ON THE GONDWANA SERIES. 
Sie, — Even a scientific controversy, if prolonged, tends to become 
less amicable than it should be, and I shall therefore not attempt to 
reply at length to Dr. FeistmantePs remarks in his paper on the 
Gondwana Series of India, published in the Geological Magazine 
for November, 1876. I will only beg that any one who feels 
interested in the subject will do me the honour of Consulting my 
original paper in the Records of the Geological Survey of India 
for 1876, pt. iii. pp. 79-85, because I do not think that a just idea 
of my views or of the objects of my paper will be derived from 
1 This was the former collective name for the whole upper portion of the Gondwana 
System, as used by Dr. Oldham ; but there are certainly several different groups. 
