138 
Record.t of the Geological Hurvey of India. 
[voL. xr. 
The last being the “culm” and “Devonian” beds of Dr. Feistmantel’s series, 
with which I have no present concern. No. 3 includes both the upper beds in 
Newcastle and Dr. Feistmantel’s “ lower coal measures.” In the “ Remarks” ^ the 
Lepidodeiulron beds are noticed under the heading of Middle Palseozoic, all the 
coal measures of Newcastle are classed in the upper Palaeozoic, together with 
the “lower coal measures” of Dr. Feistmantel, while the Wjanamatta and 
Hawkesbury beds are treated apart from the others under the heading of Me¬ 
sozoic or Secondary Formations. Take the following extracts^ from the “Notes 
on the Upper Palaeozoic Beds” and compare them with Dr. Feistmantel’s classifi¬ 
cation : — 
“ As far as some of the plants are concerned, it may be admitted that they are in an unsatis¬ 
factory condition at present; but the balance in favour of a carboniferous age for the Qlossopteris 
beds is, to my mind, conclusive.” 
The Glossopteris beds include both the upper (Newcastle) coal measures and 
the lower coal seams with marine bands. Again’*— 
“ So far, then, the cpiestion about the age of some of the Australian coal must be considered 
as settled; and if, as in Illawarra, the coal beds overlie the marine beds, as they do also in the 
Vingal district of Tasmania, it would appear that all these separate occurrences belong to one 
thick series, in which marine beds aud fresh-water beds interpolate each other. But assuredly 
in that case the arrangement adopted must express the order as follows ;— 
“ 1. Upper coal measures. I ‘‘ 3. Lower coal mcasure.s. 
“2. Upper marine beds. | “4. Lower marine beds.” ■* 
I cannot sec how Mr. Clarke can be quoted to justify the removal of the 
upper coal measures from the palaeozoic series in the face of such evidence as 
this. I beg to call attention to the fact that Dr. Fei.stmantel always gives his 
own version of Mr. Clarke’s views, whereas I quote Mr. Clarke’s published words. 
Mr. Clarke may have changed his views (I have no reason to believe he has) ; 
he may, like myself, have been guided by Dr. Feistmantel’s statement® that 
there is a radical difference between the flora of the upper (Newcastle, Bowen- 
fels) and lower (Stony Creek, &c.) coal measures in Australia. I accepted 
Dr. Feistmantel’s opinion as that of an expert, and was immediately quoted by 
him as evidence,® part of my sentence quoted by him being omitted so as to 
’ Mines aud Mineral Statistics of New Sotith Wales, &c., Sydney, 1875, pp. 161...191. 
’ Clarke, 1. c., p. 178. 
3 Ib., p. 179. 
Mr. C. S. Wilkinson, tbe Government Geologist, writes thus in the same work, page 128,— 
" Tbe several divisions of the upper palaeozoic scries have been named after tbe localities where 
they are found to be most typically developed. In descending order they are as follows :— 
“ Wyanamatta series. 
“ Hawkesbury series. 
“ Upper coal measures of New’castle, Mbd- 
longong and Bowenfels series. 
Rec. G. S. 1., Vol. IX, pp. 70, 71, 121, &c. 
® I said, Rec. G. S. L, Vol. IX, p. 83, “ Nos. 3 and 4 appear to be connected by the J resence 
of Qlossopieris Srmomana in both, although,/rom specimens which Dr. Feistmantel has shown 
“ Upper marine beds. 
“ Lower coal measures. 
“ Lower marine beds. 
“ Lepidodendron beds.” 
