PAUT 1.] Bfauford : Palaonlological Relations of the Gondimina Sgstem. 1‘21 
Jabalpur and Rajmahal forms, and that the separation of the beds with Rajmaha] 
fossils is untenable. 
In two or three cases the reptilian fossils of the Kota-Maleri beds are quoted 
by Dr. Feistmantel as liassic. Thus, in one instance^ ho writes, “ Remains of 
Lepidotus and of Hyperodapedon have also been found in the Ceratndus beds indicat¬ 
ing the same liassic formation and again,® “ In the Wardha field . . . the same 
flora (Jabalpur) is associated with liassic terrestrial animals.” The only liassic 
forms are fish; the sole animal of probably terrestrial habits hitherto described^ is 
Hyperodapedon, which in Europe is exclusively triassic, and the affinities of both 
ParasucJms' and Ceratodtis are unmistakeably ti-iassic. It is, in fact, the association 
of characteristically triassic types with equally marked liassic genera in the same 
group of rocks which adds so gi’eatly to the interest of the Kota-Maleri beds,* 
and the circumstance that these remains are clearly insufficient to enable the 
geological age of the beds to be accurately determined shows how cautious wo 
should be in attaching weight to the far less characteristic plant evidence. 
RijMAUAL GROUP.—In proceeding to the Rajmahal flora I .should, perhaps, 
commence by saying that Dr. Feistmantel may possibly be correct in considering 
it liassic, but I think he fails to prove his case, and I cannot but believe that the 
emphatic assertion and re-assertion that the flora is liassic, on every page of the 
“ Palseontologia Indica,”* from title to colophon, is a mistake. I think the argu¬ 
ments in favour of the flora of the Umia group of Cutch being middle Jurassic 
are certainly stronger than the instances brought forward to pi’ove the liassic 
affinities of the Rajmahals, and yet’ the apparent connexion in the first in¬ 
stance is misleading. 
I shall not attempt to go into the question of the Rajmahal flora in detail. 
1 simply take Dr. Feistmantel’s own data, as fully given in the “ Paleeontologia 
Indica,” ® and I find that fifteen species are said to be closely allied to rhsetic fossil 
* Rec. G. S. I., Vol. IX, p. 135. 
^ Pal. Ind,, Ser. II, p. 56. 
^ Q. J. G. S., Vol. XXV, 1869, p. 138. It may be thouglit that I am descending into 
trifling details, and that it is unfair to qnote what may, after all, be misprints. I can only say 
that I am merely taking a few instances of mistakes almost at random, and I .could give many 
more. Whether liassic is a misprint for triassic, or whether the mistake is dne to carelessness, 
the effect is tlie same. I should probably have omitted the paragraph but for finding the following 
statement made by Dr. Feistmantel about the Kota-Maleri fossils in the last number of the 
“ Palaeontologia Indica" containing the description of the Jabalpur Flora, Ser. XI, pt. 2, p. 102-22, 
“ We know, for instance, that Hyperodapedon in England is a Trias.sic Dinosaurian, and so is 
Belodon in Germany.” 
I regret having to call attention to such mistakes, but it is not fair to the other members of the 
Survey, who have been mercilessly criticised by Di*. Feistmantel, that errors like this should be left 
unnoticed. It must be remembered that Dr. Feistmantel has always had proofs of his i)opers, aud 
consequently is fully responsible for any errors in them. 
“ Q. J. G. S., Vol. XXXI, 1875, p. 430, &c. 
= Rec. G. S. I., Vol. IX, p. 84.—Pal. Ind. .Ser. IV, pt. 2. p. 17. 
' Ser. II, pts. 2, 3; see also Rec. G. S. 1., Vols. IX, X, passim. 
’ Rec. G. .S. I., Vol. IX, p. 82. 
. » Ser. II, pp. 143, 187, &c. 
Q 
