PART 1.] Blanford: Balceontological lielations of the Gondwdua Sgstem. 119 
by Dr. Feistmantel to represent the Oon-kmiya belong to Trigonia van. The only 
Goniomya I can discover certainly resembles 0, inflata, but the specimens are not 
very good. This species and Astarte mayor are in fact, so far as I can see, the 
only forms mentioned by Dr. Feistmantel which really indicate an alliance be¬ 
tween the Umia fauna and that of middle jurassic beds. 
It is scarcely necessary to j)oint out how very strongly the evidence of tho 
Trigonice confirms Dr. Waagen’s views of the upper Jurassic affinities of the 
Umia group; as the Cephalopoda of the group are confined to the lowest bed.s, 
it is quite possible that the upper j)ortion, containing the plants, may bo of 
wealden or even neocomiau age. The only marine fossil known to be found 
above the plant-beds is Tr. Snieei (I am not sure whether Tr. ventrieosa accompanies 
it or not) and there is no reason why this species should not range into lower 
cretaceous. This position would quite accord with the circumstances of the Umia 
group being immediately succeeded by strata with upper neocomian Gephaloymda, 
if the former pass up into the latter. It is not, however, clear from Dr. Stoliezka’s 
notes whether this is the case or not. 
Of course aU that has been said as to the impossibility of determining 
the horizon of beds from the affinities of a very small percentage of selected 
fossils is equally applicable to Dr. Feistmantel’s remarks on the Katrol and 
Chari beds.' Is the occurrence of a single middle Jurassic Monotis in the Katrol 
group, and of a Uassic species of the same genus in the Chari beds of any weight 
when compared with the mass of evidence afforded by the cephalopod fauna 
In the sub-divisions of tho Chari group alone there are thii-ty-nine Cephalopoda, 
either identical with European species, or so closely allied that Dr. Waagen, who is 
not addicted to uniting species, does not separate them. We are actually asked 
to doubt this evidence on the strength of a single species of Monotis. It would bo 
as reasonable to suppose the Chari group cretaceous because it contains two 
TerehratulcB, w'hich have been referred to the cretaceous species T. sella and 
T. hiplioata. 
Again as to Paraswhm, the identification of the Maleii flora with that of 
Jabalpur was hazardous, to say the least, but whether the identification was 
correct, or whether, as now appears probable, the Maleri beds are older than tho 
Jabalpur gi’oup, either they are not triassic, or Dr. Feistmantel’s own identi¬ 
fication of them is wrong. Why then, in order to make out the Cutch beds 
older, does he write® of “Parasnclms, a vertebra of that Crocodilian fossil which 
is looked upon as Triassic, and which occurs frcqiicntly with tho Jabalpur flora 
near Maleri, which latter is identical with oui' Kaoh flora.” Mr. Lydekker'* •* has 
since she^vn that the generic identity of the Cutch and Maleri fossils is uncertain. 
Iloforo concluding these remarks on the Cutch beds there is one more point 
to which I have to take exception, and that is the classing together of tho Umia 
• Rcc. G. S. I., vol. IX., p. 116. 
® Pill, liid., Ser., vol. IX, pp. 226-230. 
“ Kcc. G. S. 1., vol. IX., p. 116. Sec also Pal. Ind., Scr. II, pt. 2, p. 57. 
•* llec. G. S. I., vol, X, p. 35. 
