124 
Records of /he Geological Survey of India. [vol. ix. 
Pecopteris Australis, McCoy., Sphenopteris, Teeniopteris Daintreei, McCoy,, 
Zam.ites ellipticus, McCoy. 
Phyllotheca Australis, McCoy.—Here we have real Phyllotheca with 
Tceniopt. Daintreei, McCoy. 
4. From the Wianamatta and Hawkesbery, we have mostly Dichopteris, Thinn - 
feldia, Pecopteris odontopteroid.es, Morr., Teeniopteris, etc.; and in both 
the same genus of a fish. 
5. I rom Clarence River District.— Teeniopteris with narrow leaves, and a coni* 
ferous branch, to which Mr. Clarke himself marked /Voltzia. 
G. Bowenfels and Newcastle—Here the flora is mostly developed: Vertebraria, 
real Phyllotheca, many Glossopteris (hut very few identical with those 
oi India), mostly Gloss. Browniana, Bgt., coniferous plants near the 
mesozoie Pchinostrobus, coniferous seed-vessels and others, but no animal 
fossils, nor lower carboniferous plants. 
5.— Loiver coal-measures — 
I have seen Teeniopteris near Tceniopt. Eclcardi, Germ., Glossopteris, small 
specimens: besides these, there are quoted Phyllotheca and Nceggerathia. 
With these are associated carboniferous fossils. 
Strata below with Cyclostigma Kil tovko.mi m. Haught., 11 h a cop ter is , Spheno - 
phyllum (real palasozoic form). These I have seen myself. And again 
a palaeozoic (carboniferous) fauna. 
From this we see the followingOnly the strata sub. b can claim a palaeozoic age, 
containing a prevailingly carboniferous fauna, which already in c occurs together with 
a pahuozoic (lora. The flora in b is very poor, containing only few forms, which* are so 
frequent in the upper strata ; and to use Mr. Clarke’s words about the Glossopteris, we may 
say: “ There (in the Australian lower coal-beds) it clearly does not govern, but must be 
subordinate to the faunaand further he says, “ why might it (Glossopteris) not pass into 
secondary rocks without denying its existence in the Australian lower coal-measures” ? 
In the last publication, Mines and Minerals of New South Wales, there is a Sup¬ 
plementary Report by Mr. John Mackenzie on the New South Wales coal-fields, in which 
on Section b, is 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. 
This may he enough for the present paper; some more material would clear off the 
matter still better. But already lrom this we see that there is a great difference between 
the upper and lower portions of the coal-measures in Australia, the former containing 
only flora of mesozoie afliuities, the latter prevailingly a carboniferous fauna, by which they 
are in connection with the beds below, although some plant forms begin in them, which 
afterwards are much more developed; but no Schizoneura, no single-pinnate Neuropteris, 
no Sagenopteris, no Voltzia, no Atbertia, etc., are found. 
Our Damuda flora could, at all events, only be compared with this upper portion, and 
only tluough the Glossopteris and Vertebraria, our flora being much more numerous, 
but, as I have said, there is perhaps only one species common ; the Australian Verteb¬ 
raria seems to differ from ours, and the Phyllotheca in Australia is as well related 
'* Remarks, etc,, p, 165, 
