120 Tlecords of the Geological Surveg of India. [voL. XI. 
and Katrol groups of Cutch, without, so far as I can see, any sufficient evidence 
being produced in justification of the change. 
In the introduction i to the description of the flora of the Golapilli beds 
(Rajmahal) referring to Trigmiia ventricosa and to its occurrence in some beds at 
Innaparazpilli near Coconada, Dr. Feistmantel writes, “The same form occurs in 
the upper beds (TJmia and Katrol),” and a few lines further on, “ As now the upper 
beds in Kach, ■with that Trigonia, are called TJmia and Katrol (both being thus 
joined by the most common fossils), these Trigonia beds near Innaparazpili may 
be taken to represent both these gToups in Kach.” On the next page® the 
Sriparmatur and Ragavapuram beds are said to be overlaid by Katrol and Umia 
deposits, and in a table showing the supposed relations of various upper Gond- 
wana groups, the higher beds in Cutch (Kach) are classed together as TJmia- 
Katrol. There are, I may add, several points of correlation in this table which 
are, to say the least, open to question. 
Trigonia ventricosa may be found in the Katrol group, although I can find no 
pre-vious mention of its occurrence, but it is certainly not common, and it is mis¬ 
leading to say that the TJmia and Katrol groups “are joined by the most common 
fossils.” Altogether, forty-five species of Gej)halopoda have been found in the 
two subdi-visions of the Katrol group and ten in the Dmia, and of these only one, 
Belemnites Kunkotensis, is common ^ to the two, another being indicated as doubt¬ 
fully identical.* * So far as I am aware, too, the characteristic bivalves of the 
Umhi grouji do not occur in the Katrol beds. I think Dr. Feistmantel may have 
expressed himself ill, and that what he really means is that the plant-remains of 
the two groups are similar, but it is scarcely correct to speak of these as the 
most common fossils, for they, are rarer than marine fossils in the Umia group, 
and in the whole Katrol subdivision they have hitherto only been detected in one 
locality. 
Kota-Maleri beds. —On these I have very little to say. They were at first 
classed by Dr. Feistmantel as Jabalpur beds“ on account of the occurrence of two 
Jabalpur species of Conifers, Palissya Jabalpurensis and Araimariies Gutchensis, and 
a supposed lower portion was separated and considered equivalent to the Rajma¬ 
hal group® on account of the occuiTence of Palissya conferta and GMrolepis 
Muensteri. This view was adopted at first by Mr. Hughes and Mr. King on the 
evidence of the plants. It is instructive, and it affords an example of the risk of 
placing too much dependence on fossil-plants, to find that the discovery of additional 
species in the Kota-Maleri beds has shown that the rocks contain a mixture of 
* Pal. Ind., Ser. II, pt. 3, p. 164. 
^ 1. c., p. 165. 
“Pal. Ind., Ser. IX, p. 4. Atp. 232, however. Dr. 'Waagen says that not a single species 
passes from the Katrol into the Umia group. The doubtful identification is B. claviger. 
* 1. c., p. 7. 
“ Rec. G. S. 1., Vol. IX, pp. 86, 134-135. 
' Rec. G. S. I., 1. c.. Pal. Ind,, Ser. II., pp. 57, 165, 190. Sec also Mr. King, Rec. G. S. I., 
Vol. X, p. 61, &c. Subsequently Dr. Feistmantel modified his statements about the absolute separa¬ 
tion of the groups in the Gondwana region, Rec. G. S. I., X, p, 29, but the mischief was done. 
