PART 1.] Blaiiford: FaUeoHiological Belalions of the Gondwdna System. 107 
enquire how far Dr. Feistmantel’s published views arc consistent with facts, 
and to notice in each case his objections to my arguments. I should perhaps 
commence by saying that my fii’st objection to Dr. Feistmantel’s writing from 
beginning to end is that he repeatedly omits to state the whole of the facts ; ho 
brings forward just so much of the evidence as is in favour of his own view's, 
and ignores the remainder. Of this I shall have occasion to give several instances. 
I quite believe this to be unconscious and unintentional on Dr. Feistmantel spart, 
but it tends to invalidate his arguments so seriou.sly, that it is impossible to leave 
it unnoticed, and it hns this most serious di.sadvantago that, as most of his 
papers are upon a somewhat abstruse subject, it is almost impossible in general 
to tell what points have been omitted. 
The 2 ^cdeeoidological contradiction .—On p. 115^ Dr. Feistmantel points out 
that on j). 29 he had fully noticed as a pala5ontological contradiction the discre¬ 
pancy between the fauna and flora of the Kach gi’oup—that is, the Umia. 
group of Dr. Stoliezka. This is coiTect, and I ought, perhaps, in my paper to 
have noticed it. Unfortunately, however’, any one turning to Dr. i eistmantel s 
paper to learn his views as to the “age” of the Cutch (Kach or Kaohh) beds 
would assuredly consult pp. 33, 34, where a summary of the conclusions is given. 
These conclusions appeared to me misleading in two respects; they represented 
the various localities from wdiich plant-remains had been obtained in Cutch as 
belonging to tw'O distinct horizons, and the only palseontological contradiction 
was said to be that plants indicating “ generally an age as old as the Bathonian 
or Bath oolite, and some of them a still older horizon ” were from higher beds 
than the ammonite fauna, w'hich is “ not older than Bathonian. ’ I was, I think, 
fully justified in pointing out that the contradiction was much greater than 
would be supposed from Dr. Feistmantel’s remark. 
^‘Premature conclusions .”—At page 117 Dr. Feistmantel writes 
’*! woiiUl next notice some points relating to the lower Gondwana groups upon which Mr. 
Blauford’s conclusions were rather premature. It will appear (as).(S) that the affi¬ 
nities of our Damuda flora with that of the incsozoic epoch and especially of the triassic 
formation arc overwhelming, and that the arguments for this conclusion are not derived from 
three species discovered only last year.” 
A reference to vol. ix, p. 82, will show that this is not a correct repre.senta- 
tion of my language. I said “ main arguments, ” and by divorcing the phrase 
from its context, the expression is made to take a very different aspect from that 
intended. All I wished to point out (i c.) w'a.s, that although Dr. Feistmantel 
might be justified in considering the Damuda flora as triassic, his predecessors, 
who were ignorant of some of the facts since discovered, should not be blamed, 
as he had by implication blamed them,^ for coming to a different conclnsion. 
The only known connection of any importance betw’een the Damuda flora and 
the European triassic flora, previous to the discovery of the three Karharbari 
* Rec. G. S. I., vol. IX, pt. 4. 
2 See, for instance, Rec. G. S. I., vol. IX, p. 68. " It ha.s been, and will perhaps yet be, endea¬ 
voured to show that the Indian Damuda series are of palaeozoic age, but I do not see where is the 
proof, as the palaeontological results, Me possible 'proofs, indicate loioer mesozoic. Ac. The 
italics are in the original. 
