130 
Records of the Geological Survey of India. 
[voi.. XI. 
There is one more point to notice. I cannot agree with Ur. h’eistmantel’s opi¬ 
nion that “Rstheria has hitherto been neglected in India in the discrimination of 
horizons, ” ^ and I think this is a fair instance of the manner in which Dr. 
Peistmantel often writes of all who have preceded him. Whether he intends in 
this case to charge his colleagues and Mr. Hislop with neglect or not is not 
the point at issue. I do not accuse him of intentional injustice; I simply question 
the accuracy of his statement. All the fossil species of Rstheria hitherto found 
in India have been described and figured, and if this has not been done “in India” 
surely Anglo-Indians are not to be blamed because they send fossils for descrip¬ 
tion to competent naturalists in Europe. Every known discovery of Estheria in 
the Gondwana beds, either by Mr. Hislop or the Survey, has been noticed in print, 
nor is there a single occurrence noted by Dr. Feistmantel which had not been 
previously recorded. Why, then, are we charged with neglect ? The evidence I 
have given above will enable any one to compare Dr. Feistmantel’s use of 
Estheria with the previous “ neglect, ” and to determine which course is most in 
accordance with scientific truth. 
Geological evidence .—Thus far I have treated the question of the pateontologi- 
cal relations of the Mangli beds, my object being to shew how untenable 
Dr. Feistmantel’s views are. But it must not be forgotten that these views were 
opposed to Mr. Hughes’ and my own, founded upon geological evidence. As my 
own examination of the rocks was only preliminary, I depend chiefly upon Mr. 
Hughes, w'ho has examined the whole of the Wardha coal-field in detail. I have 
accepted Mr. Hughes’ views when they differ from my own in the case of the 
Maleri beds, so it is not merely because our opinions coincide as to the M4ngli 
beds that I quote ray colleague’s determinations, but solely because he had fuller 
opportunities for coming to a decided conclusion. 
Mr. Hughes’ ® views as to the beds of Mangli are, I think, perfectly clear. He 
does not express any doubt as to the position of the strata; he places them amongst 
the typical Kamthi beds, and estimates that they are about 700 feet above the 
base of the group. It is true that no higher beds than the Mangli beds are seen 
in the immediate neighbourhood, because the Deccan traps rest unconformably 
on the Gondwfmas close by, but there are higher Kamthi beds elsewhere. A few 
pages farther “the occurrence of red argillaceous shales, like those of Mangli, is noted 
north-east of Balar hill, near Wun, and Mr. Hughes remarks that as they should 
not be more than 400 feet above the coal-measures, the horizon assigned to the 
Mangli beds is probably not too low. This, of course, implies that the Mangli beds 
are probably the equivalents of those seen near Balar hill. Now, the Kawarsa and 
Punwat beds are nearly on the strike of these beds north-east of Balar hill, and 
therefore presumably on nearly the same horizon as the Mangli beds, the rock con¬ 
taining Estheria; Punwat* resembling the Mangli shale in mineral character. 
But above the beds at Kawarsa and Punwat are all the sandstones of Malargarh 
hiO, which are characteristically Kamthi. There is no part of the Wardha field 
> Kec. O. S. 1., Vol. X, p. 30. 
Mem. G. 8. I., Vol. XITI, p. 71. 
’ L. c., p. 75, 
♦ L. c., p. 77. 
