i6 
Sedimentary Formations. 
The extent of territory from which my specimens have been 
collected embraces a direct distance of more than 1,100 miles 
(English) between 10° S. and 35° S. (of course at intervals only), 
from which we may infer the importance of its discovery in any 
new locality, as establishing the existence of a portion of tho 
Devonian series to which it has been finally assigned. 
Till the present date it was not surprising that even careful 
observers should classify this plant with Lower Carboniferous 
species, as Mr. Odernheimer did in his paper on the Peel River 
Estate (i Sydney JExhib. Catalogue , 1854;, p. 54), and as I was 
reproved lor doing in 1851 (Report on Coal Eields, Western 
Port, Victoria, 1872.)* £If M‘Cov was right in that instance, I 
could not be far wrong. 
It was satisfactory to bo able to recognize this plant in .Tan- 
nary last in a creek near Rydal, on a spur of the Mount Lambie 
Range, where tho Devonian Brachiopoda occur, and to be able to 
direct Mr. Wilkinson to the locality where he found his five addi¬ 
tional specimens, which certainly establish the position in situ of 
the species in that locality. 
The quotation from the Coal Report named above, and the 
assertion of the Reporter, show that the opinion held by Professor 
M'Coy as to the age of the Lepidodendron in question is still 
maintained. 
In the first Decade of his excellent work, illustrating tho 
Palaeontology of Victoria, now in the course of publication, he 
combats in a moderate tone the assignment of this plant to L. 
no/hum, still re-asserting his old opinion. 
Writing in 18G1 the learned Professor proves that there is no 
mistake about the identity of the plant in question, for he says, 
a specimen of it, still I believe in the Melbourne Museum, is 
of the same species as the only Palaeozoic coal plant ever collected 
in New South Wales, and which was sent to mo about twelve 
years ago for “ determination during the controversy as to the 
age of the plant beds of the Newcastle N.S.AV. beds.” This 
mistake as to date is of no importance, as it is rectified by my 
previous quotation from Mr. M'Coy’s letter, and I only refer to 
it to show, which is due to himself, that we are treating of one 
and the same plant. 
UrPER Paleozoic. 
I would not venture to say, that no Lepidodendroid plant is to 
be found in our coal measures, or even the one in question, if the 
range of that species goes upward; for I myself submitted two 
coal plants from Lower Carboniferous rocks on the Rouchel 
River to Professor Dana, who sent them on to Mr. Leo Lesque- 
reux of Columbus, Ohio, the best authority in America, on 
fossil botany, and whoso report is that one is near Lepidodendron 
