PAST 1.] BlaufurJ: PahtoHloluij 'iciil Itvlul'wns of Uio Gundmana Sijdem. lOIJ 
Yet again p. 142, in a description of now fossils from the Damuda (Eani- 
ganj) group, Macrot<Bniopteris dfflm^oicZcs is mentioned once more. Here, again, the 
object being to prove the Damudas mesozoio, Tmiiopteris cibnornm and its affini¬ 
ties are ignored, the resemblance between T. danceoidos and the Eajmaha] fonns 
is again insisted upon, and the old argnments repeated. All the specimens arc 
said to “ have a very mesozoic aspect and strikingly resemble certain specimens 
from the lias (Keiiper ?) in the Alps. ” 
I admit that this matter is comparatively of trivial imjiortance, bnt still it i.s, 
I think, only right to call attention to it, because it is a typical and characteristic 
example of what 1 cannot but consider a radical error throughout Dr. Feistman- 
tel’s arguments. The whole of the facts, so far as I know, are stated in one place 
or another, but the mesozoic or the paleeozoic relations of Macrotceniopteris are 
insisted upon, according as the one or the other is in favour of the, writer’s 
arguments at the moment. 
Criticism of one of Dr. FeistmnnteVs sentences.—To illustrate the peculiar 
form of argument further, 1 will take for criticism a single sentence. Dr. Feist- 
mantel first jjoints out that Dr. Oldham endeavoured to show that the Damuda 
flora was paloeozoic, that this Anew had been questioned by Sir C. Bunbm’y, and 
that subsequent collections afforded “ unmistakable evidence” in favour of the 
mesozoic' and, in the winter’s opinion, triassic age. He proceeds— 
“Already in the old collections ft'oni Ranigani there wore proofs enough. There were Schko- 
neura very frequent, there were one or two Saffenopteris, Prosl., Olosso/'teris, different from those 
in Australia. Fi'om Kamthi there were specimens of Tceniopleris (Macrotmiiopteris and An- 
giopteridkm) of distinct real ftiyllottieca, like that in the oolites in Italj'; there were again a 
quite different Glossopteris from those in Austridia, different not only by the shape of the leaf, hut 
especially by the fructification.” ^ 
Now, so far as the old collections went, the only Damuda specimens of 
SeMeoneura^ which had been determined were from some of the highest beds in 
the Raniganj group at the top of the Damuda scries; the form is locally abund¬ 
ant it is true, but, to the best of our knowledge some years ago, it was only 
found in the position I have stated. The Sagoiopteria may be mesozoic, but the 
quotation of “ Glossopteris different from those in Australia,” is certainly no 
argument in favour of the mesozoic and triassic ago of the Damudas. In the 
first place, it is only since Schiraper’s work appeared in 1869 that the species of 
Glossopteris have been distinguished ; Dr. Oldham thought differently,'* and bo it 
remembered Dr. Feistmantel is in this paragraph imputing blame to Dr. Oldham 
»1. c., p. 119. 
“ I, of course, copy those extracts as they are printed. 
® In several papers, and especially in the “ Geological Magazine,” 1876, p. 488, and “ Neues 
Jahrhuch,” 1877, p. 155, Dr. Feistmantel writes of Schizoneura as though it were excessively com¬ 
mon in the Damuda formation. This is, I think, a mistake, Schizoneura abounds in one or two 
beds in the Raniganj field amongst the very higliest Damuda (Haniganj) strata, and a large number 
of specimens were collected from these beds, .so that the plant is peculiarly well represeuted in 
the Museum, but so far as my own experience goes, I have only found Schizoneura leave.s in, 
I think, two localities in the Raniganj held, The stems m.ay have been found elsewhere, hut 
they are far less common than Vertebraria and Glossopteris. 
* Mem. G. S. I., Vol. II, p. 328. - 
