26 
Records of tlie Geological Survey of India. 
[vol. x. 
Note on Esthehia in the Gondw an a formation, by Ottokak Feistmantel, M.I)., 
Geological Survey of India. 
Recently, a very interesting paper was sent to me by Prof. Geinitz (Dresden) on some 
fossil plants and animals from tiro Argentine Provinces—La Rioja, San Juan, and Mendoza.* * * § 
From the total of the fossils described by Prof. Geinitz, he declares the series to be of Rhsetic 
age. This paper has induced me to examine again our Estheria-bearing rocks, and to com¬ 
pare them together regarding their homotaxical position. 
1 .—Estheria in the Mdngli beds. 
In the American Rhsetic beds, M. Geinitz recognized, as very abundant and characteristic, 
an Estheria, which was first described by Mr. Rupert Jonesf from Mangali (Mangli), Central 
India, between Nagpur and Chanda, about 60 miles S.-S.-E. from the former place. 
The argillaceous sandstones at Mangli contain very few other fossils, except that Estheria 
and another of much smaller form, which is as frequent as the E. Mangalensis, but remained 
undetermined. Thus, the position of these Mangli beds has remained always somewhat un¬ 
certain, although Mr. Jones thought there were reasons to consider the beds as Rhsetic, 
which is most probably the case. 
From the common occurrence of this smaller form of Estheria in the Mangli beds and 
in the Panchet group, Mr. W. T. Blanford first considered the Mangli beds as belonging 
to the Panchet group but in his later paper on the “ Geology of Nagpur,"§ he set aside this 
evidence as insufficient, and finding no stratigraphical feature whereby to separate them, 
he left these beds in the Kamthi group, which, without any doubt, is analogous with the 
Raniganj group, forming the upper part of the Dumuda scries, both having the same 
Phyllotheca indica, Bunb. (the real leaved branchlets), Vertebraria indica, Bunb., Glos- 
sopteris communis, Fohn., etc. In a recent detailed survey of the Wardha coal-field, by Mr. 
Hughes,|| the Mangli beds are still left in the Kamthi group, there being no physical grounds 
for a separation. This should only encourage us to seek help from paleontology. 
Considering that the Damuda series, in general, contains very frequently plant fossils and 
is especially characterized by the occurrence of Glossopteris, which is till now the only 
character of it, as Sckizoneura, with the same species, is also numerous in the Panchet group, 
and that not a trace of these fossils is found at Mangli; on the other hand, that the 
Mangli beds contain mostly only'that mentioned Estheria, which, with exception of Kawarsa, 
of which I speak further on, is nowhere found in the Damuda series, but only in younger strata, 
it will be perhaps advisable to look for another place for these Mangli beds ; it seems to me 
that they are to be taken at least of the age of the Panchet group, or even still younger. 
First, the plant fossils. These are very poor, and consist till now only of some stems, which 
have no relation with any of the Damuda fossils, but with younger forms: 
a. Palissya. A stem fragment figured in Sir Ch. Bunbury’s Nagpur flora,'PI. XII, f. 1_ 
as “ Knorria ? (Portion of stem of a Conifer /)” is certainly a coniferous plant, as 
is well seen from the relation of the scars. I have an original specimen of the 
same, and I am convinced that it belongs to the fossil Palissya and most pro¬ 
bably Pal. Brauni., Endl. 
* Beitrag zur Geologic und Palaiontologie der Argentinischen Republik. 
I. Paiieontologiacher Theil. II. Abtheilung: Uber Rhatische Pflanzen und Thierreste in den Argentinsichen 
Frovitizen— La Rioja., San Juan, und Mendoza. Von Dr. Hanns Bruno Geinitz. Cas6el 1876. 
f Jones’ Monograph of the fossil Estheriae, Palceontogr. Soc., 1862, p. 78. 
t Mem., G. S., Vol. III., p. 164. 
§ Ibidem IX, p. 32 {3 ib.) 
|| Ibidem XIII. 
Quart. Journ. G. S., London, XVII. 
