PART 1.] Blonfonl: Falmontulofjical Relations of the Guudwdua S^slem. ]:J9 
arenaceus, Jager. It might iierhnps be considoreil as only the stalk of ScUzoiieura 
Schimp. 
“ 2. SoJinotieum, Schimp. fragments. 
“3. Glossopteris Indica, Schimp. (Ghssopteris Browniana, var. Indka, Bg-t.), a piece of a 
large leaf with large reticulations. 
“4. Glossopieris Browniana, var. Attsiralasica, Ttgt. Some smaller leaves than the above 
may he deteimined as being of this species.” 
Surely the species quoted are well knowu and characteristic Damuda fossils, 
bat oven if the specific identity be not certainly determined, what can be the 
meaning of the statement that the fossils of “ the real Uamuda beds are every¬ 
where so different ” from those of the Kawarsa beds ? All of the species named 
are found either in the typical Kamthi beds near Nagpur, or in the Damuda 
rocks of Bengal. 
In another paper Dr. Feistmantel writes thus,' adverting to the occurrence of 
Glossopieris fronds in a fragmentary condition amongst the Panchet btsds— 
“ This manner of preservation resembles that in the Kawarsa beds of the Chanda district, 
whore Glossopieris occurs also in a very fragmentary state, and again as-sociated with Bstheria 
(the form as in the Panchets and in the Mangli beds). In my note on the Bstlirria beds in India 
I have already pointed this out, and I repjcat again that the Kawarsa beds veiy likely are on the 
horizon of the Panchets in Bengal. 
This can only mean that the fragmentary oecuiTonco of Glossopieris fronds 
indicates contemporaneous deposition ! Fragments of leaves are the rule in all 
plant-bearing formations, so far as my experience goes, but no collector bring.s 
them away w'hen he can obtain more perfect specimens. 
The value of the observation as to the rarity of occurrence of Glossopieris 
at Kawarsa will be best appreciated in connexion wdth the fact that Dr. Fei.st- 
mantol has never visited the locality and has scon only about half a dozen specimens. 
I am sorry to be obliged to cxpo.se in this manner the value of the arguments 
put forward, but leaving them without answer has already done mischief, and 
it is necessary to show the kind of data upon which Dr. Foistmautol bases his 
conclusions in thus case. His reason for arguing that the Kawarsa beds are not 
Damudas arc probably the following. Learning that Dr. Goinitz had found an 
Esthoria, apparently identical with E. Man(/aliensis, in some bod.s said to bo of 
rhaitic age in America, Dr. Feistmantel appears to have concluded rather hastily 
that the Mangli beds were of the same age, and as this view received some support 
from Professor Rupert Jones’ original remai'ks, it was accepted. The oceurrenc(! 
of the Mangli Estheria with characteristically Damuda plants at Kawai’.sa was a 
difficulty, and hence the very curious arguments which were cmploy^ed to make 
out that these Damuda plants prove that the beds in w'hich they occur are 
not of Damuda age. Of course the circumstance that one form of the Mangli 
Estheria occurs with Damuda plants about 30 miles away at Kawarsa is of vastly 
greater importance in determining the relations of the Mangli beds than the 
existence of the same Estheria with rha'tic plants in South America. 
“ Roc. G. ,S. I., Vol. X, p. 139. 
