]06 
liecoriU of the Geological Survey of India. 
[voi- XI. 
in charge of liis office for throe months, in Jtily, August and September, 1876, and 
one of the duties entrusted to me was to edit the number of the “ Records ” for 
August. Onojaaperby Dr. Feistmantol, “ On the Age of some Fossil Floras in 
India,” had appeared in the preTiou.s number of the “ Recoi'ds,” and a second was left 
with me in manuscript. It appeared to me that both the.se papers were to some 
extent deficient; that whilst numerous circumstances wore stated in favour of the 
writer’s views, some important conflicting evidence was omitted, and tliat preTiou.s 
observers were treated in some cases not (]nite fairly. The opinions put forward as to 
the age of the rocks ( and it should be remembered that, in Dr. Feistmantel’s two 
first papers e.specially, the teiTn “ age ” appears to be used in a distinctly chronological 
sense ) seemed to me to be much more positive than was justified, even by the 
evidence adduced, and altogether! thought that if Dr. Feistmantel’s remarks were 
published, it was only right to point out that thei’c was another side to the argument. 
I thought, and still think, that Dr. Feistmantel would have consulted his own 
reputation and the intcl'csts of the Survey by abstaining from publication until he 
had given more study to the subject, and until he had more thoroughly mastered 
the language in which he wrote ; but as I was only in temporaiy charge of the 
Survey publications, I did not feel justified in refusing to print the paper which 
had been left with me. I had, therefore, the choice of two coui’se.s to pursue: 
I might as editor have appended a running commentary of footnotes, calling atten¬ 
tion to the points in which Dr. Feistmantel’s opinions and statements differed from 
tho.se of other observore, or I might have written n separate paper, explaining the 
data on which I felt obliged to dissent from Dr. Fcistmantel’s views. The first 
course is one wffiich I have poi’sonally experienced more than once, and which I have 
always thought an unfair advantage taken by an editor; I con.sequently adopted 
the latter alternative as faher and more courteous. I printed my remarks 
in the same number as Dr. Feistmantel’s, first, because it appeared to mo 
unjust to others to allow Dr. Feistmantel’s statements to appear without comment; 
secondly, in order to have the advantage of correcting the proofs myself, as 
it was probable that I should not be in Calcutta when the next number of the 
“ Records” was due. So far as I am able to judge, thci’e was not a single line in my 
paper to which any objection could bo taken on the score of courtesy and fairness, 
nor can I see that there is tmy cause for the annoyance wffiich Dr. Feistmantel has 
since shown. hTot only, so far as I can judge, was I perfectly justified in pointing 
out that there were several omissions in his paper, but it was to some extent a 
matter of duty to my colleagues to do so, and I endeavoured to accomplish this 
task without giving Dr. Feistmantel any occasion to suppose that he was harshly 
treated, or that 1 underrated the value of his observations. I can only regret 
having failed in my intentions, and that his reply compels me to call attention to 
matters I w’ould willingly have forgotten. 
Arrangciimit of joreseut paper .—I proceed to the consideration of Dr. 
Feistmantcl’s various papers in the “Records of the Geological Survey,” and espe¬ 
cially to that which apjjeared in the fourth, or November, number for 1876. The 
course I projtoso to adopt is first to call attention to a few points on which I differ 
from the w'ritcr, or on which I think his remarks arc liable to cause error, and then, 
taking the various groups of the Gondwana system from top to bottom, to 
