no 
Records of the Geological Survey of India, 
[voL. X!. 
on tlio score of the knowledge which existed in 1860-61,' not that available in 
1876, but even supposing that the forms arc distinct, the presence of Glossog- 
teris different from those in Australia is no evidence either for or against the age 
of the Damndas being mesozoic or palaeozoic. 
The genus Tmniogteris (hlacrottenioptcris and Angiojjteridium) from Kamthi 
is the next proof. Now, when Dr. Oldham wrote, the genus Tmviopteris had not, 
to the best of my knowledge, been divided into subgenera, and therefore the 
relations of the genus as a whole were to be considered. But the genus is 
palsoozoic as well as mesozoic, and Dr. Feistmantel himself admits, p. 137, the 
affinity between the Kamthi species and the permian one. Moreover, the specimens 
of Macrotieniopteris, if collected by Mr. Pedden, as Dr. Feistmantel states, were 
not amongst the old collections, for Mr. Feddcn first went to Kamthi in 1866, 
whilst Dr. Oldham’s last paper was published in 1861. 
Then, amongst the Kiimthi fossils there was “ distinct real Phyllotlieca, like 
that in the oolites in Italy.” No mention is here made of the connexion with 
the Australian Phyllotlieca, admitted by every one to be just as closely allied to 
the Indian forms as the Italian are. This is far from the only instance in which 
this important alliance is left entirely unmontioned, although it is, of course, 
noticed elsewhere. As I shall show presently, there is good evidence that the 
Australian Phyllotlieca occurs in undisputed carbonifermrs bods. 
Lastly, the “ quite different Glossopferis from those in Australia, different not 
only by the shape of the leaf, but especially by the fructification,” is again urged 
as proof of the Damndas being mesozoic. I have already noticed this alignment, 
supposing Dr. Feistmantel to be correct in his facts; but is he correct ? It will 
bo seen that he admits of no doubt or question; the distinction in shape of leaf 
and fructification is asserted as a well-known fact, and from the context must 
be supposed to have been a fact sufficiently clear some fifteen or sixteen years ago. 
Some quotations from Sir 0. Bunbury’s paper on the flora of the Kamthi beds of 
Nagpur will serve to show how far the distinction was admitted as valid. Speak¬ 
ing of G. Brown,inna var. Tndica, be says—® 
“ On comparing this Indian Glossopferis with the common Australian G. Sronmiana, allow¬ 
ing for the apiiarent differences produced hy the nature of tlie stone, and the state of preservation 
of the specimens, I can find no satisfactory specific distinction ; the venation is essentially the 
same . . . The general form varies considerably in the Australian specimims, and is often quite 
as narrow as in those from Nagpur; thi' apex also varie.s in the Australian phiut, from very ohtuso 
and even refuse, to rather acute, though I admit that it is never, in the specimens I have seen, as 
acute as in the Indian. I have seen no trace of fructification in Australian specimens, nor is any 
mentioned hy McCoy ; on the other hand, 1 am unacquainted with the rhizoma of the Indian 
Glossopferis. In the absence of these important points of comiairison, we cannot feel certain of 
the specific agreement of the two.” 
In another place Sir C. Bunbury writes; thus":— 
“ Another and very striking characteristic of this Nagpur fossil florals its close analogy with 
that of the coal formation of Australia. The prevailing plant in each of the deposits is a Glossop- 
'■ 1865 according to Dr. Feistmantel, Kec. G. S. I., Vol. IX, p. 118, but he is in erroi', as the 
paper referred to is dated 1st June 1861, and appeared in the fir.st part of Volume III. of the 
” Memoirs,” published in 1861. Dr. Oldham’s first paper, too, was published in 1860, not in 1861. 
Q. J. G. S., Vol. XVII, 1861. p. 328. 
= 1. c., p 342. 
