New South Wales. 
29 
of coal (and which wo call Raj3IA1IAXi formation), wc have established, hy a 
careful research in dutch, to be Upper Oolite. These are characterized by an 
abundance ol Cycadea and Itenioptoris, hut not a single Glossopteris has 
been found. Then we have the group we call the Panchet System, with no 
Cycads. Schizoncura (a plant first described from the Vosges), &e., and with 
them Labyrintliodont and Dicynodont reptiles. No Glossopteris here either. 
“Then below these, with slight unconformity over the coal rocks, in which, 
observe, wo find Glossopteris lirowniana abundant ; and this holds through 
the several thousand feet of thickness, occurring in all, 
“At the base we have a small thickness (relatively) of the Talcheer 
S ystem, in which Cyclopteris shows, but no Glossopteris. 
“ Unfortunately we have as yet no animal remains from our coal-rocks. 
Notwithstanding this, in connection with your evidence from Australia, and 
hearing in mind the perfectly established identity of the Glossopteris, even 
in its varieties, and the equally established fact that Glossopteris has never 
been found in Europe , and therefore gives no clue or index to age from 
European determination, I cannot come to any other conclusion than I have 
done, that our coal in India represents the latest portion of the Carboniferous 
of Europe , and the gap between this and the Permian ; or, I would say, in a 
broader sense, the latest part of the Paleozoic time. 
“ I read Daintree’s paper with much interest, and think he has done much 
to dear up some of the difficulties. 
if Put so long as some fancied analogies with regard to fossils arc allowed to 
sway the mind, there can bo no agreement of opinion.” 
“The Glossopteris of Australia and India arc identical. \\ r e have every 
variety, as described from your beds, and no one could hesitate to admit that 
the beds arc similar also. All these Glossopteris beds must be admitted to ho 
of similar relative age in both countries. It proves nothing as to the ago 
relating to European Systems. You know better than I do the amount of 
co-existing evidence as to age which you have established in Australia. 
“ In India it is this, in a few words : — 
(3.) Above — A system of rocks, with abundance of Cycads, Tccnioptcris, 
Pccoptcridsj Ac., Ac., truly Oolit ic with their threads of coal. 
(2.) Next, separated by considerable time beds with Schizoncura, Pccop- 
tcris (wo Tamiopteris, wo Glossopteris), Labyrintliodont, and Dicyno¬ 
dont reptiles, the analogies of which arc Permian or certainly 
Lower Triassio [no coal). 
(1.) JSy.vl — The coal rocks also separated by unconformity, though 
slight, which have abundance of Glossopteris and also of Schizoncura 
of different species—os yet no animal remains. 
“ There are thus three distinct flora) with no species common to each 
You can draw your own conclusions.— T.O.” 
In the above remarks of my distinguished friend are some hints 
that will not fail to he of use ill relation to New South Wales, as 
well as to other parts of Australia, and it is satisfactory to myself 
to have so much confirmation of my own views. Though it is 
true that Glossopteris, not being a European plant, does not 
confer any claim on itself to designate the age of our coal beds, 
yet assuredly as it occurs in the Lower Carboniferous beds as well 
as in the Upper coal measures, it does bear on their association 
with the greatest force, and the two series of beds must be nearly 
of the same relative age. That age as pointed out by Dr. 
Oldham, and as I have all along stated, must be Palaeozoic. 
