I 
140 Records of llie Geological Himey of India. [vol. xi. 
is said to be “ full of large Glossopteris fronds, &c., same as bed No. 12.” Again, at 
p. 226, in a section of some coal seams and the accompanying shales. The upper¬ 
most bed, a coarse conglomerate, is said to be “full of palaaozoic fossil fauna, 
Conidaria, Odliocera.s, Prodiicta, Spirifera, Inocerami, Grinoidea, ^-e.,” whilst 6 feet 
lower down is “ shale full of Glossopteris, Phyllotheca and Noeggerathia.” 
So far, then, wo have evidence of four species of plants in the “ lower coal 
measures.” These species arc— 
1. — Glossopteris Browniana, admitted ty all to te indeiitical with the species from 
the upper coal measures. 
2. — Phpllotheea. 
3. — Noeggerathia. 
4. — Teeniopteris near T. ILclcardi (this is inserted on Dr. Feistmantel’s authority). 
Now, where is the evidence that the plants called Phyllotheca and Noeggerathia 
from the lower beds are distinct from those in the upper ? I have already quoted’ 
hIcCoy’s identification of the Phyllotheca, apparently fi-om the lower beds of 
Queensland, with P. Atidralis, the species found in the upper coal measures of 
NoAvcastlo, &c. Dr. PcistmanteTs evidence as to the distinction of the lower coal 
measures’ flora, so far as he ha.s hitherto supplied any facts, amounts to this, that 
he has seen a Tceniopteris fi’om the lower beds which he has not seen from the 
upper. He may have more evidence, but that produced is ctwtainly not sufficient 
to justify the rejection of the opinions given by Australian geologists. 
The rest of the evidence brought forward by Dr. Peistmantel need not detain 
ns long. He says (1 am obliged to re-quote part of the paragraph) ^— 
“As to 3 and 4, of wliioli tlio first arc the upper coal measures of Newcastle, Mr. Blanford him¬ 
self says, ‘ Nos. 3 and 4 appear to be connected liy the presence of Glossopteris tBronmiana in both,® 
Mhongii tiievo appears to be a considerable dis(mcfio7i in-the flora and I would add. No. 3 does 
not contain any animals,'* * while in No. 4 marine animals arc found abundantly.” 
And again®— 
“ a. —The upper portion is marked by a flora, which is abundant. Nos. 1,2, 3 of Mr. Blanford’s 
list must be referred to this; they contain no marine fossils to indicate a connection with the lower 
portion. 
“ b. —The lower coal moasures arc marked by two marine faunas of, as generally taken, a car¬ 
boniferous age, which separate distinctly these from the upper beds. The flora is, as both Mr. Clarke 
and Mr. Daintree state, oidy rare.” “ 
Now, this is one of those points on which my ideas are so diametrically opposed 
to Dr. Peistmantol’s that I can only suppose, cither that onr notions of elemen- 
’ Ante, p. 112. 
Kec. G. S. I., Vol. IX, p. 122. 
® See footnote fi, ante, p. 138, for the original form of the sentence hero quoted and the portion 
suppressed by Dr. Fcistmantcl. 
This is incon'cct of course; a fish has been obtained from the bed. 
1. c., p. 123. 
* No reference is given, and the statement is quite opposed to all the evidence; see the quotsf- 
tions from the scetioiis in “Mines and Mineral Statistics ” just given, where shales of the lower beds 
arc said to he full of Glossopteris, Pligllothcca and Noeggerathia. The section quoted (No. 1, oppo¬ 
site p. 200) is given bj Mr. Cflarke bimseif. 
