114 
Jleconh of the Geological Survey of India. 
[voL. XX. 
bury, and Newcastle groups,' “No animals,” is of course a mistake, as is tbe 
statement on the next page, that the rocks of Bowenfels and Newcastle contain “ no 
animal fossils ” (the italics are in the original). The fact that the animal 
fossils are fishes with palfcozoic affinities is omitted, and as it is impossible to 
suppose that Dr. Feistmantel was ignorant of this circumstance, the omission 
affords a good instance of his habit, to which I have already referred, of 
suppressing all evidence opposed to his views, but I have no doubt the assertion 
that “ no animals are found in the beds” is an oversight, and that the author’s 
intention was to write no marme animals. 
In the table, however, at p. 125, illustrating the relations between the beds in 
Europe, India, and Australia, Dr. Feistmantel writes, under the heading of Coal- 
measures in Australia “ (a)^— Upper coal-measures .... Flora only. ” It is im¬ 
possible to acquit Dr. Feistmantel of a mistake in a matter of fact in this case. 
It is only to be regretted that in this, as in numerous other instances. 
Dr. Fei.stmantel has not been more careful in writing his papers and in reading 
the proofs, since mistakes of this kind are certain to mislead readers who depend 
upon the writer for their information on a Httle-known subject, and who arc 
just as seriously deceived by an unintentional slip as by a deliberate misstatement. 
The error is due to oversight of course, but mistakes in such matters tend to 
diminish the confidence we should otherwise feel in the writer’s accuracy. 
ZetujophylUtes and Schisomura. —In a footnote, p. 119, Dr. Feistmantel points 
out that neither the Australian Zeugophyllites nor Noeggerathia, is a Schizoneura, 
referring at the same time to my having suggested that the Australian Noeggera- 
this might be a Schizoneura. In other papers the same matter is referred to and 
in much stronger language.^ The mistake is entirely Dr. Feistmantel’s own. In 
his original paper in the “ Decords ” " he wrote thus :— 
“ Tlie fossils tlescribod as Zeugophyllites, Brgt. from India by Brogniart (Prodrome, 121-175) 
and subsequently by Strzeleeki (‘Physical Description of New South Wales, &o,’) seem to 
belong also to Scliizonenra” 
And the same fossil is alternately called Noeggerathia and Zeugophyllites by 
different Australian geologists.^ I am quite aware that Dr. Feistmantel, in a foot¬ 
note to his paper ’’ on Raniganj plants, written after my paper was published, asserts 
that the words “ according to Dr. Oldham ” have been omitted at the close of the 
above extract; but Dr. Feistmantel is responsible for the omission, not I. The 
coiTection, too, .should have been in the “Ilecords,” and not in a footnote in the 
' The ocoimrenee of a fish in the Wyanamatta and Hawkesbury beds is, in fact, mentioned in 
the next page. Tbe paheozoic affinities of tbe species arc, however, not noticed. 
^ J. A. S. B., Vol. XL V, 1876, pt. 2, p, 345. “ It is also incorrect to consider, as Mr. W. T. Blan- 
ford has done, the Australian NoeggeratMa as ? Schizoneura, the two latter genera being quite as 
distinct as the two former {Schizoneura and ZeugopyHites) are from one another, and 1 think 
certainly that Mr. W. B. Clarke would be able to distinguish a Noeggerathia from a Schizoneura, 
and vice versa.” 
^ Vol. IX. p. 69. 
’ Q. -I. G. S., 1861, pp. 359, 360. In the latter page Mr. Clarke liimsclf speaks of Noeggeru- 
thia (or Zeugophyllites). 
’ .1. A. S. B., Vol. XL\’, 1876, pt. 2, p. 346. 
