190 
Correspondence — The Planet Mars. 
Dr. Feistmantel’s criticisms. Dr. Feistmantel suffers from the great 
disadvantage of writing in a foreign language, and I tliinlc ke ex- 
presses lnmself sometimes more forcibly than he intends. 
The object of my paper was to point out that Dr. Feistmantel kad 
overlooked some of the arguments whick kad mainly influenced the 
opinious of those of kis colleagues who kad written upon the age of 
certain portions of the Gondwana series. I may kave been in error 
on certain points, as on the question of the occuiTence of Cycads in 
the Damudas, but I still tliinlc that Dr. Feistmantel’s entkusiasm kas 
led kirn to overestimate the arguments in favour of kis own views, 
and to undervalue tkose wkick are opposed to his conclusions. I 
kave no wish to insist upon an Upper Oolitic or Post-Oolitic korizon 
for the plant-beds of Cutck, and I am far from considering the 
Palieozoic age of the Damuda beds as proved ; but I tliinlc tkat Dr. 
Feistmantel kas argued, kowever ably, on one side of the case only, 
and tkat it was a mere act of justice to kis predecessors to explain 
wky tliey kad come to a different conclusion. 
My mistalce about tke occurrence of tlie Cycadacece requires a few 
words of explanation, the more so tkat Dr. Feistmantel evidently 
considers it of tke greatest importance, for he calls attention to it in 
a marked mannev no less than three times in two pages, so as to 
produce tke impression tkat I kad committed a most absurd blunder. 
I wrote, “ Cycads kave not hitkerto been found in tke latter,” i.e. the 
Lower Gondwana rocks. Dr. Feistmantel replies, “ Cycadaceous 
plants are not absent at all ” ; and ke proceeds to enumerate three 
species, and ke adds in a footnote referring especially to me, “ they 
(i.e. Cycads) were indeed known long ago.” Now wkat are the 
facts ? Two of tke three species enumerated by Dr. Feistmantel, 
viz. Nöggeratlna Vosgesiaca and the Glossozamites, were, to tke best 
of my knowledge, not even detected by Dr. Feistmantel kimseif 
tili after my paper was written ; certainly no notice of tkem was 
published, nor kad Dr. Feistmantel called my attention to tkem. 
Tke tkird species, described by Sir C. Bunbury as Nöggeratlna 
Eislopi, was, if I am not mistalcen (I am writing at a distance from 
all books of reference), referred with doubt to tke genus ; and 
Nöggeratlna certainly was not formerly classed as a Cycad ; still 
Dr. Feistmantel may be right in referring it witliout any doubt to 
tke Cycadacece, and all I kave to say in apology is that I was not 
aware tkat tke Cycadaceous nature of tke genus kad been ascertamed. 
I tkinlc tkis explanation is necessary, and it is to be regretted tkat 
Dr. Feistmantel, by omitting to state all tke facts, kas compelled me 
to malce it. W. T. Blanford. 
Camp, Sind, February ls#, 1877. 
MR. CARPENTER ON THE PLANET MARS. 1 
Sir, — In tbe first paragraph of the first article of your last issue, 
Mr. Carpenter has exactly inverted the proper deseriptions of Mr. Croll’s 
and Mr. Murphy’s theories. This no doubt was a slip of tke pen. 
But wken he goes on to say tkat it has occurred to him tkat ke has 
1 See tbe Marcb Number, p. 97. 
