RECORDS 
OF THE 
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OE INDIA. 
Part 3.] 
1876. 
[ August. 
Notes on the age of some fossil floeas in India, by Ottokae FeistMantel, m. d,, 
Geological Survey of India.* 
Ill, IV AND V. 
In the last number of the Records I had occasion to discuss the relations of some 
local fossil floras of India, and from those relations, after a thorough comparison of our 
floras with others, I attempted to draw natural conclusions regarding the age of the rocks 
in which the plants occur. I began with the highest groups of the Gondwana series, 
and gave a list of fossil plants found in the plant-beds in Kach, and in those interstratified 
(partly) with the volcanic formations of the Eajmahal hills. I also referred the flora from 
Golapilli, (Kolapilli) near Ellore (Madras Presidency), to the same age as the Rajmahal 
group. 
Proceeding in natural order, I should next describe the other local floras more or 
less closely allied to those mentioned above, i. e., to the Kach and R aj m ahal groups. 
Such local floras are found in the Jabalpur group of the S a t p u r a and S o u t h R e w a h 
areas, the S riper ma tur beds near Madras and the Trichinopoly plant-beds. I will, 
however, postpone the consideration of these for the present, in order to give a p relimi- 
nary sketch of the floras found in the lower groups of the Gondwana system, which are 
paleontologically more interesting, as determining the geological range of this system as 
a whole. 
The groups to be noticed in the present paper, according to the classification adopted 
by the Geological Survey of India, are the following :— 
a. —The Panchet group. 
b. —The Damuda group. 
c. —The Talchir group. 
However opinions may differ as to the age of these three groups, as indicated by their 
floras, I do not doubt for a moment that all belong to one g e o logical epoch the 
Trias. Their precise age, in each case, will be shown by a discussion of each floia 
separately. I should consider it a great paheontological mistake on my part, and it would 
show want of knowledge of the literature, were I to decide otherwise, for it seems to me 
incorrect to suppose that the floras of these groups cannot be compared with a well known 
fossil flora in Europe, and to refer them instead only to a loss perfectly known flora in Aus¬ 
tralia, with which some of our plant-beds have by accident one or two genera in common. On 
the other hand, several important genera found in the fossil floras ol India are identical with 
* Continued from p. 42. 
