126 Records of the Geological Surrey of India. [voL. XT. 
Tlie following extract* * from Professor Rupert Jones’ own paper “on Fossil 
EstteriiB and their Distribution” will show whether the smaller form was or was 
not described:— 
“7. Estheria Mangaliensis, Jones. At Mangali in Central India, about sixty miles south of 
Nagpur, the Key. Messrs. S. Hislop and E. Hunter discovered in 1853 a fossiliferous, brick rod, 
laminated sandstone, which contains remains of plants, of Ganoid fishes, and of Labyrinthodont 
reptiles (Brachi/ops latieepg, Owen.) and wdde-spread, thin layers of Esthcrice. These, though 
of various sizes and somewhat diferent outlines, are all referable to one species, conditions of 
grorvth being sufiBcient, in ray opinion, to account for all the seeming varieties. This Estheria 
{E. Mangaliensis) is not without close alliances (so far as the carapace is concerned) to other 
species, fossil and recent, as is generally the case; but it gives no direct evidence as to its 
geological horvton. ....... 
“ • . . . Another locality for Estherim in Indian strata of appro-ximately tho same age 
has been found by Mr. W. T. Blauford ne.ar Pacheet iu Beng.al. Dr. T. Oldham kindly sent 
me a sample of this Esthcrian shale; but I cannot say more than that this Estherih seems to be 
the same as the smaller specimens f rom Mangali.” 
I have distinguished three sentences with italics, and it is quite unneces.sary 
to show how completely they disprove Dr. Feistmantel’s supposition that the 
smaller form was not described, and that Professsor Rupert Jones considered the 
beds rhastic. Dr. Feistmantel was probably not acquainted with Professor Rupert 
Jones’ paper in the “ Quarterly Journal, ” but in the monograph of Estherim 
published by the Palseontographical Society, and quoted by Dr. Feistmantel, the 
dimensions of several specimens of E. Mangaliensis are given, varying in their 
longest diameter from less than ^ to of an inch, and instead of there being 
on the plates “ several figures, which all indicate the larger form, ” of the five 
views of the whole carapace, one only, fig. 16, represents the larger form, three 
figures, 21, 22, and 23 represent the smaller form, and one figure, 20, is inter¬ 
mediate in size. All these figures are on the same scale, being magnified six 
diameters, so that the distinction is manifest at a glance. 
I ought to add that both Mr. Hislop ® and I * fell into the error of supposing 
that two species of Estheria occurred at Mangli, before Profe.ssor Rupert Jones’ 
description was pnbli.shcd, and I find that I repeated the suggestion that there 
were more than one in a later papor.^ It is only fair to myself to say that the 
last paper was not originally intended for publication, and that it was printed 
in my absence. Moreover, the subject was only mentioned incidentally in a 
brief geological description of the locality, and I did not, like Dr. Feistmantel, 
attempt to discuss the relations of the species. 
I do not think there can bo any question that the Estherim examined by 
both Professor Rupert Jones and Dr. Feistmantel were identical. Both had 
some of the original specimens obtained by Mr. Hislop; and those collected by 
> Q. J. G. S., 1863, Vol. XIX, p. 149. 
^ Pal. Soc., Foss. Estli., PI. II. 
^ Jour. Bombay Br. H. A. S., Vol. VI, pp. 201, 203. 
^ Mem. G. S. I., Vol. Ill, p. 134, 
* Bee. G. S. I., Vol. I, p. 65. The words were “Estherias (of two species apparently) 
abound.^* 
