PART 1.] Blanford: Palaonlological lielations of the Gondwdm S/jstem. 141 
tary geological evidence are distinct, or else that Dr. Feistmantel does not mean 
what his words convey. It is superfluous to point out that if distinction of age 
were proved by the presence or absence of marine fossils, the Glossopteris beds 
of the lower Australian coal measures must be of a different age from the fossili- 
ferous marine beds 'vrith which they are intercalated, because no marine fossils are 
found in the beds containing the Glossopteris. If the lower plant-beds are not 
diffei-ent in age from the marine fossiliferous rocks with which they are inter- 
stratified, neither can the upper coal measures be shown to be of distinct age 
from the lower on account of not containing marine fossils. 
I have one more extract to make. I hope that it vill be understood that in these 
remarks I am merely taking a few instances from Dr. Feistmantel’s papers; I 
could easily add others. The extract is the following i:— 
“ In the last puhlication, “Slines and Minerals of JJew South Wales,” there is a supplementary 
report by Mr. John Mackenzie on the Jfew South Wales coal fields, in which, on section i.s a 
sketch section from Newcastle to Port Booral, about thirty miles long. In this the difference in the 
fossil remains of the upper and lower portions of the coal measures is plainly indicated, and also 
that the upper portion and lower portion are, besides all the differences, slightly discordant.” 
The fossil differences are, that in the lower portion several marine car¬ 
boniferous genei-a occur, and in the upper portion only plants, and that those 
plants do not include the genus Noeggerathia (the plant known by this name is, 
how'ever, found elsewhere in the same bed.s) and do include some forms not found 
in the lower beds. Phyllotheca and Glossopteris are quoted from both. So far 
good; now about the discordance. I fear I shall have some difficulty in con¬ 
vincing mv readers wdthout showing them the book, but the truth is that all the 
evidence of stratigi-aphical relations in the figure quoted consists in coal seams 
being indicated in three distinct parts of the section, those to the right having 
a higher dip than those in the middle, and the latter again higher than those to 
the left. Thi.s is all; there is not, so far as I can see, the smallest indication of 
unconformity, which is, I presume, what is meant by the beds being said to be 
discordant, since it is the only way in w'hich a distinction between the different 
groups could be shoAvn in the section. How far Dr. Feistmantel is correct in 
supposing that the upper and lower coal measures are “ slightly discordant ” may 
be judged by the followdng extracts from the work in wffiich the section cited 
appears. 
Mr. Clarke himself says “— 
“ The fact that the coal beds overlie or interpolate the marine beds in what is called ‘ con¬ 
formable order ’ ought to be considered a satisfactory conclusion that no break, such as ought to 
exist under other circumstances, does exist. . . 
There can, I think, be no question that Mr. Clarke here refers to both upper 
and lower coal measures ; the sentence would be void of meaning othervrise, and 
in the previous sentence he refers to the occurrence of ganoid fishes, wffiich 
> Kec. G. S. I., Vol. IX, p. 121. 
- Evidently a misprint for section 6, 
^ Mines and Mineral Statistics, p. 166. 
