112 
[vOL. XI. 
Records of the Geological Survey of India. 
or mesozoic, andjas the genus is iinkno-vvn elsewhere, except in the Indian rocks, 
it can only he a mesozoic form because of its occurrence in those Australian beds. 
Now, those beds are held to be of palseozoic age by authorities whose opinion is 
certainly entitled to some respect, and, as I shall show presently, the emdence 
in favour of this view has been, I think, greatly underrated by Dr. Feistmantel. 
The same argument applies to PhjlMlteaa with even greater force, because this 
genus is stated by Mr. Clarke' to occur in the Glosso^iteris beds interstratifled 
wdth marine carboniferous rocks, and if it be replied that Mr. Clarke may have 
been mistaken in his identification, and that there were no specimens of Phyllo- 
tlteca in the imperfect collection from the lower Australian coal bods examined 
by Dr. Feistmantel himself, 1 would call attention to a letter from Professor 
McCoy to Mr. Daintreo printed in the “ Quarterly Journal of the Geological 
Society ” for 1867.^ Professor McCoy is surely a competent observer, and as ho 
is, and has always been, the most energetic advocate of a mesozoic age for the 
Australian plant-bearing rocks, his evidence may fairly be accepted in this case. 
He identified certain plants from Queensland as Gtossopteris Broivnimia and Pliyllo- 
theca Audralis, and although it is not stated that the Phjllotlieca occurred with 
the Glossopteris, I do not think any one can read the paper without understanding 
that the association of these two plants in the same bods is distinctly implied, 
and not only is it said that the Glossopteris occurs in beds below those containing 
carboniferous fossils, but Mr. Clarke expressly states “ no Glossopteris has been 
found in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, or in New South Wales, except 
in association with bods containing fossils of paleozoic age,”^ and this same 
statement has since been repeated even more emphatically by Mr. Daintree.’ 
Again, in another paper,Mr. Clarke mentions that a plant found by Leichhardt 
in a bed “in the midst of, and far below,” others with lower carboniferous 
animal forms, was afterwards found to be a Phjlhtheca. In the face of all this 
evidence is it correct to write of the genus Phjllotheaa as a proof of mesozoic 
ago, or to quote it as a type peculiar to mesozoic strata ? ® 
As regards Splienopihylhmi, the distinctions between the Damuda 8 . speewsum 
(or 8. trizyfutl) and the palaeozoic species may bo of gi-oat importance, but still 
the fact remains that, except in Damuda rocks, the genus is only known from 
palseozoic strata. Surely Dr. Feistmantel docs not mean to a.rgue that the peculiar 
form is mesozoic because it occurs in Damuda rocks, and Damuda rocks are 
mesozoic because they contain the peculiar form of Bplmiophylhim ? Yet in what 
other manner can the genus bo quoted as evidence of mesozoic age ? 
> “Mines and Mineral Statistics,” section No. 1, opposite p. 20G and p.IGfi. “The Greta beds ' 
are not the uppermost with marine fossils, but beds with them lie farther to the cast, in wdiich Fhyllo- 
ilieea has occurred at Harper’s Hill.” Bee also tlm notes by Mr. Wilkinson, 1. c., p. 132. These 
are quoted in ji. 131) of this paper. 
2 Vol. X.X1I1, p. 11. 
a Q. J. G. S., IStiG, Vol. XXIII, p. 10. 
Q. .1. G. B., 1872, Vol. XXVllI, p. 288. 
= Q. .1. G. S., 18(11, Vol. XVII, p. 362. 
Bee also J. A. B. 11. 1876, Vol. XbV, pt. 2. p. 317. 
