PART 1.] Blanford; PalcBoidological Relations of Iht Gondwdna Sj/stem. 105 
Dr. Feistmantel exhibited at finding his conclusions were not immediately accepted 
might subside; partly, that I feel, in this discussion, that the contest is unequal. 
Dr. Feistmantel has the enormous advantage of a thorough acquaintance with the 
literature relating to fossil plants, whilst I possess but a very imperfect knowledge 
of the subject. 
Of the three different papers which Dr. Feistmantel has published in reply 
to my remarks, it is my intention to notice only one at any length. One of the 
three papers, that published in the “ Neues Jahrbueh ” for 1877,' 1 have only seen 
since this paper was first written, the number of the “ Jahrbueh ” which contains 
it having, through some error of the agents or of the post, failed to roach the Survey 
library at the usual time. The second paper appeared in the “Geological 
Magazine” for November 1870.^ The publication of these two papers is, I think, 
a misfortune, and I beUeve Dr. Feistmantel has seen cause to regi'et having 
written and published them. 
The paper in the fourth number of the “ Records ” for 1870 stands in a very 
different position ; it appears as an official document, and should it not be shown to bo 
erroneou.s, it will certainly be supposed by geologists generally to have been 
accepited by the Geological Survey of India, and consequently as entitled to more 
weight than an occasional paper printed, without any official supervision, in a 
scientific journal. At the same time I cannot pu-ofeHS to answer every parngrapih 
in detail. Dr. Feistmantel is a voluminous writer, and although there are many 
statements open to question in the numerous papiers which he has already con¬ 
tributed to the Survey publications, I do not see the use of attemp:)ting to answer 
them all ; I merely refer to them lest I should be supposed to acquiesce in every 
statement which I do not attempit to refute. Besides the various notices in ihe 
“ Records of the Geological Survey,” a long pajier containing <lcscrip)tions of some 
fossil pJants from the Damuda scries in the Raniganj coal field has apipeared 
in the “ Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,” " and contains numerous state¬ 
ments of opunion as to the relations of the beds and of their flora. With these 
opinions, in .several instances, I am unable to coincide."* 
lieasom for publication of previous paper .—As much of the annoyance exhib¬ 
ited by Dr. Feistmantel at the publication of my former paper appears due to 
my having written it before waiting till he had .stated his views at greater length, 
and specially at my remarks appearing in the same fasciculu,s as his own, and as 
he has called attention to this circum,stance in the “ Geological Magazine,” " and 
in the “Neues Jahrbueh,”" I think I am justified in explaining my reasons 
for acting as I did. Mr. Medlicott, the Supeiintendent of the Survey, loft me 
1 LconhaTit uiul Goinitz, Neues Jalirbucli fiir Miiieriilogie, Geologic iind Piil.-coiitolngie, 1877, 
p. 147. 
= Dec. II, vol. III., p. 481. 
3 J. A. S. B. 1870, pt. 2, p. 329. 
“• Tlioi-e are also several remarks referring to members of tlie Geological 8ur\ ey, ami especially 
to Dr. Oldliani, which are neither accurate nor just. See, p. 332, the paragraph conmicnciiig 
“ But the foasila ”—and p. 373, the fourth paragraph from the top of the page. 
^ 1. c., p. 491. 
“ 1. c., p. 148. 
n 
