PART 1.] Blan/ord; Paleontological Relations of ihe Gondwn/ia Sgstem. 131 
in which the geology is clearer than in this ground, and there cannot, I think, he 
any reasonable doubt that, so far from the Kawarsa beds being higher than the 
K^mthis, they are clearly intercalated in the group, and are much nearer to the 
base than to the top. I have examined the ground more than once, and my prelimi¬ 
nary map agrees with Mr. Hughes’ finished survey. I cannot see how there can be 
any reasonable question that both the Kawarsa beds and the Mangli beds are 
typical Kamthis. I am aware that this is not stated so emphatically and clearly 
by Mr. Hughes, but he could scarcely have anticipated that his opinions w'ould 
be disputed in the publications of the Survey by one who had never seen the 
ground, and who depended upon such paleontological arguments as those I have 
just exposed. 
Flora of the Bamuda series .—I have already in the first part of this paper 
dealt at sufficient length with the evidence brought forward by Dr. Peistmantel 
to shew that the Damuda flora is characteristically mesozoic. That the generic 
relations of this flora are mesozoic rather than paleeozoic; that there is an almost 
total want in the Damudas of the characteristic forms found in such abundance 
in the European coal-measures; that Lepidodeiidron, Sigillaria and a host of other 
carboniferous types are absent; and that their place is taken by plants more nearly 
affined to mesozoic forms, have been admitted by everybody, but precisely the same 
is true of the flora intercalated with beds containing typical carboniferous marine 
fossils in Australia. The fact that the Damuda flora consists mainly of ferns and 
EquiseiacecB, and the very subordinate part played in these beds by cycads and 
conifers are palaeozoic characters, although they are quite insufficient alone to 
prove that the beds are palaeozoic. My object in the present instance, as in my 
last paper, is not to prove the Damudas palaeozoic, but to vindicate Dr. Oldham 
and his colleagues of the Survey from Dr. Feistmantel’s attacks, and to show that 
their opinion, that the Damuda flora has little or no connexion with any knowm 
European fossil flora, and that the former is much more nearly related to the coal 
flora of Australia, is more correct than Dr. Feistmantel’s. The estimate of the 
relations of the Damuda flora depends upon two distinct questions— 
1. Is the Damuda flora more nearly affined to any European fossil flora 
than it is to that found in certain Australian beds ? 
2. What are the relations, geological and palaeontological, of those Austra¬ 
lian beds ? 
I have already stated the facts as they were known to me,* but I find I have 
omitted several items of importance in relation to the Australian beds. In con¬ 
sequence of these omissions. Dr. Feistmantel’s reply appears stronger than it 
really is. 
I write under correction, and with a full sense that I am dealing with a sub¬ 
ject of which I am not a master, but merely a student, but still I think that the 
plan adopted by Dr. Feistmantel to prove the Damudas mesozoic involves a fatal 
error. From the whole of the Damuda flora he takes a plant here and a plant 
there, shows that it is related, now to a triassic, now to a rhaetic, now to a juras* 
* Rec. G. S. I., Vol, IX, pp. 82. &c. 
