PART i.] Blavford; Palmntologieal Relations of ihe Gondtvdna System. 135 
CONIFEE^. 
Voltzia heteropliylla. 
{V. acutfolia). 
Alhertia latifolia. 
A. Brauni. 
A. elliptica. 
A. speciosa. 
A. SchaurotMana. 
Taxifes ? Massalongi 
T. ? Vicentinus. 
Monocottledones. 
Yuccites Vogesiacus. 
(Spirangium regulave — 
fruit only.) 
CEihopJiyllnm speeiosum. 
AH. stipulare. 
AH. Foetterleannm. 
In tlie above lists names placed between parentheses may be neglected; they 
are either too obscure for recognition, or synonymous, or else founded solely on 
parts of the plant, such as stems or the fruit alone, which cannot he fairly' com¬ 
pared. Species representing each other in the Bunter and Damuda flora are marked 
with an asteri.sk (*), allied forms in the Damuda and Australian flora with a 
dagger (f). It is possible that some of the Australian species of Sphenopteris and 
Glossopteris should have been omitted, as they are not sufficiently defined for their 
relations to be known,^ but I wish to jDlace the whole evidence, so far as I am 
acquainted with it, before my readers. Doubtless, too, some species have been 
added to the Bunter floini since Schimper’s work was published, and some recti¬ 
fications may have been introduced. 
The above lists, moreover, are not in all cases fairly comparable, the 
Bunter flora of Euroj^e and the Damuda flora of India having been far better 
explored than that of Australia. Moreover, we may be sure that any point of 
resemblance, however slight, between the Bunter and the Damuda flora has 
been noticed by Dr. Feistmantel, whilst it is far from equally certain that the full 
connexion between the Damuda and Australian floras has been traced by an 
equally competent judge. I have classed all the species of Glossopteris in the 
Damuda series and the Newcastle beds, with one exception, as allied to each other, 
and I believe I am fully justified in doing so, but possibly one or two forms may 
not be so nearly related as I suppose. But in this subject I am ultra, crepida'in. I 
only take up a matter with which I have an imperfect acquaintance because it 
appears to me unfair to the Survey that only one side of an argument should be 
stated, and because, in self defence, I am bound to show that I really have stronger 
reasons for objecting to Dr. Feistmantel’s views than he is willing to admit. 
* I have omitted a form called Austrella rigida, founded on what appears to me to be nothing 
but rootlets, perhaps of Vertehraria, Precisely similar bodies abound in Damuda beds, but are, of 
course, worthless for comparison. 
CoNIFEEiE. 
{Palissya ? sp.), stem. 
Conifer^;. 
Some undetermined forms. 
