PART 1.] HlanJ'ord: PalcRontological Relnlious of Uie Gondwciua Sgstem. J iS 
littlo is known of their flora, the little that has been ascertained indicates a very 
close connexion with that of Indian and Australian beds. 
The plants occur in the upper groups, the Stormberg and Beaufort beds of 
the Karoo series ; the latter being the principal Dicynodont beds, and containing 
the following species, which have been described by Mr. Tate';— 
Olossopteris Broivniana (the specific identification may perhaps be questioned, 
but the species is doubtless closely allied). 
G. Sutherlandi, a narrow form like G. angustifolia and 0. leptoneura. 
Buhidgm Mackayi, very closely allied to the Damuda Palceovittarla, if not 
generically identical. 
Bictyopteris simplex; this has been shown by Dr. FeistmanteP to be a 
Olossopteris allied to some Indian (Damuda) species. 
Some equisetaceous stems referred to Phyllotheca? 
There is here a remarkable similarity to the Damuda flora. Only ferns and 
Equisetaeete are known; all the ferns belong to the simple-leaved forms so abund¬ 
ant in the Damuda beds, and three out of the five plants belong to Glossopteris. 
There is nothing approaching to this amount of similarity in any known European 
fossil flora, and the close connection between this ancient association of plants in 
Indian, South African and Australian strata tends strongly to support tlie idea 
of a former land connection between these countries, a pi’obability which is 
strengthened in the case of South Africa, by the representation of certain Eaj- 
niahal forms in the jurassic Uitenhage series, and by close alliances between 
jurassic and cretaceous marine fossils belonging in some cases, in all probability, 
to littoral forms. The relations of the Panchet Dioynodon and the Mangli 
Bradiyops to African forms are also worthy of notice. 
Kaeharbari group.- —^A few words are necessary as to the reasons for distinguish¬ 
ing this group. The coal-bearing rocks of the Karharbari coal field were 
originally classed as Bai’akar (Lower Damuda) by the Survey,^ but after the 
fossils associated with the coal had been determined by Dr. Feistmantel,® the 
> Q. J. G. S., 1867, p. 140. ’ Rec. G. S. I., Vol. IX, p. 73. 
= Besides these Dr. Feistmantel notices, Reo. G. S. I., Vol. IX, page 73, tlie occurrence of a species 
probably belonging to Gangamopteris, “described by Mr. Tate, from tbe Karoo beds (triassic) in 
South Africa as Cyclopteris Jenlcinsiana.'’ A reference to the original description (Q. .1. G. S., 
1867, Vol. XXiri, p. 146) will show that Dr. Feistmantel is mistaken, as this plant was described from 
the higher Ditenhage series, classed as jurassic, and not from the Karoo beds. 1 am, to some 
extent, responsible for the error, as 1 edited the paper, but I was not then aware of tbe amount 
of revision required by Dr. Feistmantel’s papers. 
“ Mem. G. S. I., Vol. VII, p. 209. 
I regret to be obliged to call attention to the manner in which Dr. Feistmantel has repeat¬ 
edly mentioned the dates at which these and other fossils were discovered (see especially Rec. 
G. S. I., Vol. IX, p. 119; Geol. Mag. 1876, p. 489, footnote 12), in order to cast discredit upon myself 
and others, and to cause it to be believed that these plants were known at a time when I had stated 
that they were undiscovered. Dr. Feistmantel has omitted to state that the fossils mentioned had 
been packed awav in drawers and boxes, and with, 1 believe, one exception, had not been identified 
by any one. Of the exception no notice had appeared in print; the specimen bad not been 
exhibited, and its existence was not known to the Survey generally. 
T 
