128 
Reronh vf the Geological Survet/ of India. 
[vOL. XI. 
The Rstheria from Kawarsa. —Having thus far treated the purely pateonto- 
logical affinities of the Mangli beds, I will, before proceeding to the geological 
argument, advert to the Kawarsa Edlieria. After a few notes on the JEstheria 
from the Panchets, which Dr. Feistmantel says “ is certainly identical with the 
smaller form of Estheria in the Mangli beds, mentioned as Estlierki minuta, var. 
Brodieana, Jon.,” ^ he proceeds to discuss the occm’rence of apparently the same 
crustacean at Kawarsa. The following arc extracts from the account given ^;—. 
“ The Kawarsa beds occur near the southern “ marijin of the basin, and Mr. Hughes speaks of 
them as several hundred feet from the base of the series. Tliey have yielded some broken plant- 
remains and Estheria. 
“ a, —An Equisetacemts stalk, pretty distinct; it belongs to that group of forms which gener¬ 
ally arc termed Fhyllotheca . 
" h. —A fragment of an oblongly lanceolate leaflet, with marked ribs, which might belong to 
Schizoneura, Schirap. 
“ c.—Some broken specimens of Glossopteris occur very rarely in comparison with those so 
richly represented leaves at Nagpur, and elsewhere in the Dainudas; and I have no 
doubt that these beds, near Kawarsa, are younger than all the real Uamudas, including 
the Kamthi Ranigauj group. 
“ To this indication now is to be added the occurrence of Esther ia, which is certainly identical 
with that in the Panchet group, the state of preservation and the size and form'’ being identical; 
and is therefore to be considered as very likely Estheria minuta var. Brodieana Jon. 
“ From the occurrence of the Estheria, an animal fossil which is still so frequent in the 
Mangli beds and in the Panchet group, and from the scarcity of phants altogether ® and from the 
state of the rock, it would, I think, follow that the locality at Kawarsa is scarcely to be considered 
as representative of any group of the real Damuda beds, the fossils of which are everywhere so 
difEerent from tho.se both of the Mangli and the Kawarsa beds ? ” 
Contrast with the last passage and with the above list of plants the following 
list ® of the same plants from Kawarsa as supplied by Dr. Feistmantel himself to 
Mr. Hughes, and published by the latter:— 
“ 1. Fhyllotheca Indica, Bunb. Established by Bunbury as an Indian type. It is one of 
the Equisetaceie of the genus Calamites (Suckow) and reminds one of Calamiles 
’ Dr. Feistmantel adds, “ I compared specimens from both localities, and I could not find any 
difference.” This had been done befoi-e by Professor Rupert Jones (Q, J. G. S., Vol XIX, p. 149), 
Mr. Ilislop (Join-. Bom. Br. R. A. S., Vol. VI, p. 201) and myself (Mem. G. S. I., Vol. Ill, p. 134, 
with the same result, but, as was pointed out by Professor Jones, the condition of the Panchet 
species is such as to prevent the identification from being certain. 
^ Rec. G. S. I., Vol. X, p. 28. 
® South-west mai-gin would be more correct. 
■* The value of size and form in determining species of Estheria will have been seen from the 
details already given as to the differences between E. Mangaliensis and E. minuta var. Brodieana. 
I do not understand how the “ state of preservation” in fossils can be employed as a means of 
identification. 
® This is another argument which could not be used by any one having a knowledge of the 
rocks in the field, for the Kamthi group is remarkable for the paucity of organic remains. Surely, 
too, Mr. Hughes and 1, who examined the beds at Kawarsa, are better qualified to judge of the 
“ state of the rock” and its bearing upon the relations of the beds than Dr, Feistmantel is from the 
examination of half a dozen cabinet specimens derived from a single bed. 
“ Mem. G. S. 1., Vol. XIII, p. 70. 
