PART 1.] Blanfurd : Palaontologieal Relations of the Gondwdna Si/slem. 113 
The nineteen distinctly mesozoic Ramuda forms. —I have disposed of two out of 
the nineteen “ distinctly mesozoic forms ” in the Damudas, Sphenojphyllum speciosmn 
or trizygia apparently not being included in the nnmherl The beds containing 
Neuropteris •oalida, VoUzia, Alhertia, and Glossozamites, as I will show presently, 
must he separated from the true Damudas. The other mesozoic Damuda types 
comprise Alethopteris Lindleyana, allied, it is true, to some European mesozoic 
forms, hut equally close to A. Australis from the Newcastle beds of Australia or 
their representatives in Tasmania ; Macrotcaniopteris, two species, the affinities of 
which have already been shown not to be exclusively mesozoic: and Gangamopteris, 
three species, classed as mesozoic on account of the occurrence of the genus in cer¬ 
tain beds in Victoria (Austi’alia), the assumption as to the age of which beds depends 
entirely upon the same evidence—fossil plants—as has been shown to be fallacious 
in New South Wale.s. One species of Gangamopteris, too, is common to the beds 
of Victoria, and to those of Newcastle (New South Wales), always classed by 
Mr. Clarke as palaeozoic. It is quite possible that the Victoria beds may be 
mesozoic," but there is no evidence that they are newer than the Haw'kesbury and 
Wyanamatta beds of New South Wales, and the animal remains in the latter 
exhibit palteozoic affinities. It would be quite as just and reasonable to argue 
on this evidence that the Victoria beds are palteozoic as it is to assume, as 
Dr. Feistmantel does, that the Australian strata containing Vertebrarla and 
Phyllotheca are mesozoic. It is evident that out of the “ nineteen distinctly 
mesozoic forms ” only seven, viz., ScMzoneura Goridwanensis, Actimpteris Jlengal- 
ensis, AngiopteriAkm. sp., three species of Sagenopteris, and one of Nueggerathia have, 
when the Kai’harbari j)lants are omitted, any claim to the title, and of these, none, 
except the Schizoneura, can be said to be sufficiently known for their affinities 
to be clearly ascei-tained, nor, with the same exception, do any of the plants 
named belong to characteristic forms. Actinopteris is a common li\"ing genus, 
Sagenopteris is close to Glossopteris, and although it is highly iDrobable that the 
European and Asncrican palaeozoic Noeggerathiis differ from the Damuda types, 
the latter are allied to Australian forms, and none are sufficiently well understood 
for their relations to be unmistakable. I fully grant that in arguing thus I 
am raising minor objections, but my object is to point out that the evidence is 
strained by Dr. Feistmantel, and that any one arguing on the other side, and 
using the same style of reasoning, could produce at least as good pi-oof in favour 
of coming to a diametrically opposite conclusion. 
The asserted absence of animah in 'upper Australian coal-measures. —These 
remarks tend to become so lengthjq that I can only notice one or two other jjoints 
before proceeding to the second part of my subject. Dr. Feistmantel’s classifica¬ 
tion of the Australian coal-bearing rocks^ into Upper and Lower differs entirely 
from that adopted bj^ Mr. Clarke and other Australian geologists, and the remark 
api^ended to the whole of the upper beds, including the Wyanamatta, Haw'kes- 
' Rec. G. S. I., Vol. IX, p. 121. 
“ See p. 142. 
“ Jlec, G. S. I., Vol. IX, p. 123. Tbe subject will be found more fully treated further on, j), 137 
