PAUT 1.] Blanford: Palmntological Eelalions of the Gondwdna Sj/stem. 125 
rocks, and to that of Mr. Hughes, ‘ although the latter was founded on a thorough 
and exhaustive survey of the whole country. 
The plant evidence is very slight, and I do not understand Dr. Feistmantel 
to attach much importance to it. The only recognizable fragments consist of two 
stems, and these are so poorly preserved that Sir C. Bunhuiy,^ who had, I believe, 
quite as good specimens as those examined by Dr. Feistmantel, was uncertain 
whether the one was a lycopod (Knorria) or a conifer, and whether the other 
should he referred to Stirjmaria or to a fern. Dr. Feistmantel may he correct in 
saying that he is “convinced” that the first is a conifer and belongs to Palissya, 
but it may fairly be questioned whether the suggested identification of such 
fragments with the rhsetic P. Brauni is of any importance. The other specimen 
Dr. Feistmantel says “ is certainly a fern stem ” and very similar to those de¬ 
scribed from the rhartic beds in Bavaria. This may be quite correct, but the value 
of the evfdence is so small that it may safely be disregarded until very much 
more is known of fossil fern stems. As to the supposed Palissya, a stem, 
which is not uncommon locally in the ironstone shales of the Damuda beds, 
has a striking resemblance to the Mangli fossil; so far as I can judge (the 
question is one for a botanist, and my knowledge of the science is insufificient for 
my opinion to have any weight), the resemblance is as close as that of the 
Mangli stem to Palissya Brauni. As, moreover, it has been shewn by Heer ® that 
fragments of the Permian Voltsia Hungarica, in which the loaves are preserved, 
but the leaf-scars {Zagfen) are wanting, can .scarcely be distinguished from the 
rhaetic Palissya Brauni, it may bo doubted if the leaf-scars alone, all that is 
preserved in the Mangli stems, are sufficient for specific identification. The 
plant evidence, from such fragments, may be safely dismissed as worthless. 
The animals of the Mangli beds are of more importance. They consist of 
BstJieria and a Labyrinthodont, Bracliyops laticeps. Of the former Dr. Feist¬ 
mantel says*— 
“ There are certainly two forms, a larger and a smaller one— 
“a.—BsiJteria Manyaliensis, Jones .This is the larger form, which Mr. 
Jones dcscrihed first from Mangli . . . On some specimens E. Mangaliensis is 
only represented, while on some others it is mixed with the other smaller form, and 
still, on some others, thi,s latter only is predominant. 
“ Jones gave several figures which all indicate the larger form E. Mangaliensis J. As to the 
age Mr. Jones considered these beds, for certain reasons, as Khsetic, and now Professor 
Geiuitz describes the same species from beds of the same age in South America. 
“ b. — Estheria comp, mbmia var. Srodieana, Jones. This form was not described ; it is, how¬ 
ever, as frequent as the larger one. Prom the size and form, and from the structure of 
the shell, they can safely be taken as very closely allied to Estheria minuta var. 
Erodieana, Jones, which, as Mr. .Tones indicated so distinctly and exhaustively, is 
characteristic of the rhaitic beds.” 
“ This smaller form the Mangli beds have in common with the Panchet group.” 
» Mem. G. S. I., Vol. XIII, p. 71. 
’ Q. J. G. S., Vol. XVII, 1861, p. 340. 
’ Verh. K. K. Geol. Eeichsanst. Wien., No. 2, 1877, p. 43. 
* Rec. G. S. I., Vol. X, p. 27. 
