12.2 
Records of the Geological S'Urveg of India. 
[voL. XI. 
plants and only three to liassic, two out of these three having equally close 
rheetic affinities. Omitting these two, the rhfetic affinities of the Rajmahal 
flora are shewn to he in proportion to the liassic affinities as thirteen to one, or in 
other words, the connection with the Europiean lias is only one-thirteenth of the 
affinity to the rha 3 tic. Not a single identical species is known with certainty to 
occur in either case,* the only suggested identification, that of Pterophylltim 
propinepmm, being, as Dr. Peistmantel himself notices, founded on a fragment too 
imperfect for accurate determination. 
It is perfectly true that besides the liassic and rhsetic forms, there are shown 
to be four or five Kajmahal species ® related to middle Jurassic (lower oolitic) 
plants, one being identical; and this argument, which is indicated, though not so 
clearly as could be desired, in the 4th paragraph on p. 160, is the only one of any 
value urged. At the bottom of the page, however. Dr. Peistmantel says, “We 
have, therefore, fossil plants which exhibit Liassic character, with some forms 
having their representatives in the Ehajtic.” Everywhere, on page after page, the 
liassic relations of the flora are insisted upon, and it is only when, turning from 
assertions to facts, the reader commences to examine the relations of the plants 
in detail, he finds liassic affinities are scarcely shewn to exist. Of the style of 
argument adopted, I will quote only one instance. On one page * the genus 
Paiissya is said to be known only from rhastic strata; on the 02 iposite page, near 
the bottom, is the following line, “Conifer.®. Paiissya iwtfica, Pstm., indicating 
lias.” 
The real fact, so far as I can judge from Dr. Peistmantel’s data, is that the 
Rajmahal flora has veiy little similaiuty to any known fossil flora in Europe. 
There is a certain generic connexion ivith certain lower and middle mesozoic plants, 
but there is absolutely loss similarity to the rather poor flora of the lias than there 
is to the rhajtic or even to the oolitic flora. To label the flora as characteristically 
lias is, I think, a mistake, and wiU lead to error. 
It is so difficult to hunt out anything through Dr. Peistmantel’s multifarious 
notes and descriptions, of which I trust I may bo pardoned for sayfing that the 
arrangement might be improved with advantage, that I may have overlooked 
some reference to the relations between the Rajmahal flora and that of the 
Uitenhage formation in South Africa, but I have not found any notice of this 
important fact.'* The latter flora occurs in the Geelhoutboom beds or wood bed 
* At p. 160 several liassic plants arc enunciated, Alethopieris Whithyemis, Pecopteris 
Nehhensis, TMnnfeldia rhontboidalis, &c., and are said to have near analogies in the Rajmahal group. 
In the “ General table of the fossil flora of the Rajmahal group with relations and analogous fonus 
in other formations,” pp. 143-148, and at p. 156 in the list of characteristic plant-remains of the 
group and their ago, it is shown in several instances that the affinities of the Rajmahal species 
with rhffitic plants are closer than with the liassic forms subsequently mentioned, 
^ Sphenopteris argiita, Fterophyllum f.ssum, Williamsonia sp., Arauoarites macropierus and 
perhaps Rymenophyllites Bunourymms. 
= Pal. Ind., Ser. II, p. 154. 
Tate: Q. J. G. S. 1867, Vol. XXIII, pp. 144, 169, &c. I think the connexion has been 
briefly noticed by Dr. Peistmantel in the “ Neues Jahrbuch,” hut I am unable to find the passage. 
