27 
i'ART 1.] Feiatmantel: Estheria in the Gondwana formation. 
b. “ Truneus filicis.” Another stem is figured in Sir Ch. Bunbury’s paper (1. c.) PI. XII, 
2, and marked “Stigmaria 1 (Portion of the Rhizome of a fern.)” 
This Mangli stem is certainly a fern stem, and is very similar to those M. Schenk de¬ 
scribed as “ Trunci filicurn” from the Rh®tic beds in Bavaria. I have an origi¬ 
nal specimen in our collection from Veitlahm in Bavaria, which is almost 
identical with that figured from Mangli in Sir Ch. Bunbury’s paper. 
Besides these two mentioned forms, there are only some indistinct stems known. 
Instead of an abundant flora, we find as very numerous the shells of little crustacean 
animals ; there are certainly two forms, a larger and a smaller one. 
a. Estheria Mangaliensis, Jones.—(See: Jones—Pal®ontograf. Soc., 1862. Mono¬ 
graph of fossil Estheri®—p. 78, PL II, f. 16-23, and Geinitz 1. c. Uber 
Khatische Pflanzen und There etc.,—PL I, f. 1-6, p. 3). This is the larger 
form, which Mr. Jones described first from Mangli; we have numerous pieces 
of rock from there, on which this form lies abundantly. On some specimens 
E. Mangaliensis is only represented, while on some others it is mixed with the 
other smaller form, and still, on some others, this later only is predominant. 
Jones gave several figures, which all indicate the larger form E. Mangaliensis J. As to 
the age, Mr. Jones considered these beds, for certain reasons, as Rhsetic and 
now Prof. Geinitz describes the same species from beds of the same age in 
South America. 
b. Estheria comp, minuta var Brodieana, Jones. This form was not described; it is, 
however, as frequent as the larger one. From the size and form, and from 
the structure of the shell, they can safely be taken as very closely allied to 
Estheria minuta var. Brodieana, Jones),* which, as Mr. Jones indicated so 
distinctly and exhaustively, is characteristic of the Rh*tic beds. 
This smaller form the Mangli beds have in common with the Panehet group, and to 
judge only from the Estheria, an animal f ossil, we may consider both on the same horizon, 
to which view, in the case of Mangli beds, there is no objection; but as also no plant of the 
Panehet group is found in the Mangli beds, the former being closer connected with the 
Damudas by the Sehizoneura, while in the Mangli beds the plant-remains are very poor, and 
most naturally referable to Rh®tic fossils, I consider, as most probable, that the Mangli 
beds cannot belong to the Darnuda series at all, and that they are rather to be considered as 
the uppermost continuation of the Panehet group. 
Already Mr. Hislop himself has pronounced, 1864, quite distinctly that the Mangli 
beds are to be placed above the plant-bearing beds at Nagpur (Q. J. G. Soc., 1864, pp. 117 
and 282. 
The Mangli beds have yielded also a Labyrinthodont Reptile, which is described by 
Owen as Braehyops laticeps, Ow. (Q. J. G. S., 1865, p. 37, Pl. II). But this is, of course, 
no objection to the view I suggest, as it is well known that Labyrinthodont Reptilia occur also 
in the Keuper of Europe. 
2.— Estheria in the Panehet group. 
In the Panehet group, besides pretty numerous plant fossils, an Estheria also occurs, 
which is certainly identical with the smaller form of Estheria in the Mangli beds, mentioned 
as Esth. minuta var. Brodieana, Jon. I compared specimens from both localities, and I 
could not find any difference. 
* Jones, 1. c„ PI. II. 
