PART 1.] Blanford: Balmoiilologicol Relations of the Goudwdna System. Ill 
ietis, and it appears (as far as we can judge in the present state of our knowledge) to be 
actually the very same species in both ? ” 
The above extracts relate solely to Q. Browniana var. Indica, but the typical 
form of G. Brmvtiiana, —identical in shape of frond with the Australian species 
or variety,—was also recognised by Sir C. Bunbury amongst the Nagpur fossil 
plants.! Surely this fact ought to have been mentioned. 
Again, as regards the fructification. As is sho^vn above. Sir C. Bunbury 
(writing in 1861, the year in which Dr. Oldham’s last paper was published) had 
no information as to the fnictification of the Australian form. The only inform¬ 
ation since obtained, a.s far as 1 know, is that published by Mr. Carruthers in 
1872.“ He says, speaking of some specimen.s from Queensland— 
“ Olossopteris Brotoniana has been so frequently described and figured, that I find nothing 
additional worth recording from an examination of Mr. Daintree’s specimens, unless it be that 
one shews some indications of fruit in the form of linear sori running along the veins and 
occupying a ijosition somewhat nearer to the margin of the frond than to the midrib. ” 
The fructification in the commoner Nagpur form of Glosso]feris (G. Indica, not 
G. Browniana') which is figured in Sir C. Bunbury’s paper, ^ is of course quite 
different. But is the evidence of “indications of fruit,” observed only in one 
specimen amongst the numerous fronds of Glossopteris Brovniiana which have been 
examined, sufficient to justify Dr. Feistmantel’s confident assertion that the 
Kamthi Olossopteris differs from “those in Australia” “especially by the fructiflea/- 
tion ? ” and why is the existence at Kamthi of Olossopteris Browniana identical 
with the Australian foi-m left unnoticed ? and is it fair to quote information first 
published in 1872, in order to show that a writer in 1861 was guilty of ignorance 
for not being awai’c of such facts ? 
1 have criticised this passage at great length in order to show how very much 
Dr. FeistmanteTs statements and arguments are open to question. The sentence 1 
have taken is by no means exceptional, but it is of course impossible to go through 
the whole paper in the same way. 
Broof of mesozoic age. —Still, before quitting this question of evidence, I may 
perhaps as well deal at once with Dr. Feistmantel’s views of wffiat constitutes 
“proofs of mesozoio age.” Mr. Wood-Masonis said to have brought a suite of 
fossils affording such proofs. Amongst the forms cited are Vertebraria and 
Aletliopteris Lindleyana. In another place Dr. Feistmantel writes’^— 
“ The Damnda flora exhibits itself quite decidedly' as mesozolc and most naturally of triassic 
age, as out of thirty-ono species known at present, there are nineteen distinctly mcsozoic forms.” 
Or again ^—- 
“ The mcsozoic (epoch) is marked by the following peculiar genera (of JSquisetacetB). 
“ Scldsoneiira, Sissimp.’ SplienopJiyllum, a peculiar form. 
Bhyllotheca, Bgt. Vertebraria, &c,” 
Is this not a ease of petitio principii ? One of the questions in dispute is 
whether the age of the beds in Australia, in which Vertebraria occurs, is palasozoic 
» 1. c., p. 329. 
= Q. J. G. S. 1872, Vol. XXVIIl, p 351. 
= 1. c., PI. VllI, fig. 1, 4. 
* Rcc. (}. S. I., IX, p. 119. 
= 1. c., p. 121. 
« ,T. A. S. B., Vol. XLV, 1876, pt. 2, p. 337. 
’ This is, of course, a misprint. 
