lii’ccnh of I Ik: Geuloyical Survey of Lidiu, 
[voi,. XT, 
ins 
plants hclongiiig to Voltzia, Allertia and Newroijteris was in tlio oecuiTence in both 
of allied forms of Bdiixonenra. In Dr. Feistmantel’s own conclusions {1. c. 
p. 77) the only Damuda species said to be triassic were ScJiixoimira Go7iclwanensh, 
Neuropteris valida, Voltzia nevti/olia, “ and perhaps Alhertia speciosa, ” and I was, 
therefore, I think, not “premature” in concluding that Dr. Feistmantel’s “main 
arguments ” for the triassic age of the Damudas, were derived from the three 
last species, since the occurrence, of the Scliizo'neura alone would scarcely have 
sufficed to indicate the age of the beds. 
The differences between the floras of the upper and lower Gondwanas may 
not be quite so absolute as 1 thought that they were, but still the difference is 
very gi-eat. The question as to the “ analogy with the flora of the lower coal 
strata in Australia” I will deal with hereafter. 
The case of Macrotcemopterts .—On p. 118, in order to show that the Damuda 
(lower Gondw/ma) formation is closely allied to the upper Gondwana REijmahals, 
Dr. Fei.stmantel thus insists on the resemblance between certain forms of Maero- 
tceaiopterk found in the two series, and the distinction between them and the 
European carboniferous forms ; in this instance the object is to shew that tho 
Damudas are mesozoic— 
“There are amongst the Tainiojiteridm two forms which are very near to some from the 
Eaimahal Hills, Maevotoeniopieris danceoides being very near to M. lata, 0. M. var. miiscefolia . . 
. . “Of course it may be said again that these are genera of wide range, but yet the species arc 
distinct; so is tho Macrolreniopteris lata and danceoides well distinct from Tceniopteris ahnormis^ 
or Germani or imtUiuerois in the carboniferous . . 
It should be noticed tliat in tho above extract, in order to emjjhasize the 
distinction between Tmiiiopteris dwtmoides and the European pahuozoic species, 
the former i.s placed in the genus or subgenus Maorotmiiopteris, whilst T. ahnormis 
is classed with T. Gormani in Tceniopiteris itself. 
A few pages farther however, (p. 128,) in what is virtually a distinct paper, 
instead of proving the Damudas high in the series, tho object is to show that the 
upper Gondwanas are low down. The relations between the various species of 
Macwtceniopte7-is are again discussed, but with a slight diffeionce. Not a word 
is said about the Damuda species, but Dr. Sterzel’s notice of the close relationship 
between tho Rajmahal species .and Tceniopteris almo-nnis is quoted with approval— 
“ Dr. Sterzel says about these species (M. lata, M. muscefoUa, and M. Morrisi) so closely 
allied with Tanopt. ahnormis, 6utb., that thei'e is scarcely any difference, and only the formation 
separates them. For mo it is a great satisfaction to see forms, which I have declared to be liassic, 
so nearly related with a perraian one.” 
Contrast this with the la.st extract, in which M. lata was said to be “well 
distinct ” 'from Tceniopteris ahvnnnis. But this is not all; farther on, at p. 137, 
a new Macrotaniopteris from the Damudas is described and shown to be interme¬ 
diate in characters between the Rajmahal M. lata and the permian M. ahnormis, 
and this piece of evidence is again brought in to prove the Damudas triassic. 
“ Our species holds ii middle place between tho permian Tceniopi. (Macro/reniopt.) ahnormis, 
tJutb., and the three species of Maerolmniopfcris from the Riijniahal Hills, and wc have, therefore, 
in our triassic bods, between the permian and jurassic, a Macroteeniopteris.” 
' Subsequently said to be permian. 
