PART I.] Blanford : Pal(eontological lielationif of the Gonihvdna Sptem. 143 
by this fossil to tlie determination of tlie age of the beds in Victoria, and the 
reflected light thus east upon Indian rocks through Oangamepteris angustifolia and 
Phyllotheea, which are associated with Tmniopteris Daintreei in Victoria are fre¬ 
quently noticed by Dr. Feistmantel. Tceniopteris Daintreei is also noticed as occur¬ 
ring with Decopteris Australis in Victoria, whilst in Tasmania Pecopteris Australis 
and Glossopteris occur together.' All this is quoted from McCoy,^ with one slight 
omission; the specific name of the Glossopteris is not mentioned, although McCoy 
states that it is G. Browniana, and as this is admitted to be a palscozoic species, 
its occurrence with the Pecopteris would neutralize the importance of the Tceniop- 
teris in any case. 
But I cannot understand how Dr. Feistmantel overlooked another remark of 
Professor McCoy’s on the next page, in which it is pointed out that the Queens¬ 
land specimen called Tesniopteris Daintreei is probably different from that of 
Victoria. Here is the brief description of each fonn— 
“ Taniofteris Daintreei, McCoy, from Victoria.^ General character. —Frond, simple or 
pinnate, Umg, narroic with a thick .strong midrih, from which the veins extend nearly 
at right angles to the lateral edges, either once or twice forked or simple. 
“ Tceniopteris Daintreei, McCoy, apvd Camithcrs, from Queensland.* * Frond, simple (?), hroad 
linear; TmArVo somewhat thick; veins leaving it at an acute then passing out at 
right angles to the margin, once or twice diohotomously divided.” 
I have italicised portions of the above, and I can only add that so far as I can, 
without any special botanical knowledge, give an opinion, it appears to me that, 
judging from the figures in the two works quoted, the two so-called Tesniopteris 
Daintreei of Victoria and Queensland must be very well marked and distinct 
species. It is scarcely conceivable that they can be specifically identical. 
It is true that Pecopteris odontopteroides is said to be common to the Queens¬ 
land jurassic strata and to the Wyanamatta and Newcastle beds of New South 
Wales. But Carruthers himself points out distinctions in shape between his 
figures of the Queensland form and Morris’ representation of the New South 
Wales fern, although he believes both to belong to the same species.' As there is 
a strong probability that the Queensland and New South Wales beds are really of 
different age, it is to be hoped that this question will be re-investigated. 
The remainder of the evidence as to the fossil flora of Victoria tends to show 
that this flora cannot, in all probability, be much newer than the Newcastle beds 
of Australia. Phyllotheea and Gangamopteris angustifolia occur in both. It 
p. 143, “ I must still once more state tliat the Australian Gangamopteris is from mesozoic strata in 
Victoria, together with Tceniopteris Daintreei, McCoy.” 
> Rec. G. S. I., vol. IX, pp. 121, 122, 123. 
= Prodrome, Pal. Viet., Dec. II. pi. XIV. 
® Prodrome, Pal. Viet. Dec, II, p, 15. 
* Q. J. G. S., Vol. XXVIll, 1872, p. 355. 
* This fern has been referred hy Morris and Carruthers to Pecopteris, by McCoy to 
Gleiehenites, hj' Dr. Feistmantel to Thinnfeldia, and by a Belgian writer, Fr. Crepin, to Otopteris — 
Bull. Soc. Roy. Belg., vol. XXXIX, p. 258. Can all have examined the same fossil ? The figures 
appear to me to show considerable variation. 
