Mines and Mineral Statistics, 
t6i 
The extent of territory from "which my specimens liave been 
collected embraces a direct distance of more than 1,100 miles 
(English) between 19^ S, and 35^ S. (of course at intervals only), 
from which we may infer the importance of its discovery in any 
new locality, as establishing tlie existence of a portion of the 
Devonian series to which it has been finally assigned. 
Till the present date it was not surpinsing that even careful 
observers should classify this plant with Lower Carboniferous 
species, as IMr. Odernheuucr did in his paper on the Peel Eiver 
Estate {Sydncj/ Exhih. Catalogue, 1S51, p. 54), and as I was 
reproved for doing in 1851 (llc])ort on Coal Eiclds, A\"estern 
Port, Victoria, 1S72.) If M'Coy -was in that instance, I 
could not be far 'icrong. 
It was satisfactory to be able to recognize this ])lant in Jan- 
uary last in a creek near Eydal, on a s])ur of the Mount Lnmbie 
Itange, whei'e the Devonian Erachiopoda occur, and to be able to 
direct Mr. 'Wilkinson to the locality where he found Ids live addi- 
tional specimens, u hich certainly establish the position in sifit of 
the species in that locality. 
Tlie quotation from the Coal Deport named above, and the 
assertion of the Beporter, show that the opinion held by Professor 
M‘Coy as to the age of the Lepidodendron in question is still 
maintained. 
In the first Decade of his excellent work, illustrating the 
Palaeontology of Victoria, now in the course of publication, he 
combats in a moderate tone the assignment of this plant to L, 
noiliitm, still re-asserting his old op)inion. 
"Writing in 1S()1 the learned Professor proves that there is no 
mistake about the identity of the plant in question, for lie says, 
a specimen of it, still I believe in the Melbourne Museum, is 
of the same species as the only JBaJceozoic cord id ant ever collected 
in Kew South AValcs, and which was scat to me about twelve 
years ago for “ determination during the controversy as to the 
age of the plant beds of the Newcastle X.S.W. beds.” This 
mistake as to date is of no importance, as it is rectified by my 
previous quotation from Mr. M‘ Coy’s letter, and 1 only refer to 
it to show, Avhich is due to himself, that we are treating of one 
and the same plant. 
Upper Paljeozoic. 
I would not venture to say, that no Lepidodendroid plant is to 
be found in our coal measures, or even the one in ([uestion, if the 
range of that species goes upward; for I myself submitted two 
coal plants from Lower Carboniferous rocks on Ihe Eouchel 
Eiver to Profcs.sor Dana, who sent them on to IMr. Leo Lesque- 
reux of Columbus, Ohio, the best authority in America, on 
fossil botany, and whose report is that one is near Lepidodendron 
II 
