New South Wales. 
35 
Respecting Mr. Daintrce’s evidence, may l)e added here the 
extracts from two letters from that gentleman to myself (which 
were published by me in a paper on “Marine, Fossiliferous 
Secondary .'Formations in Australia ” (Q.J.G.S., xxiii, p. 11) :— 
“ Bowen, February 10 ’ 1866. 
“ In the Bowen River Coal-field, your statement as to the 
Palaeozoic age of the Newcastle beds is, so far as I could judge, 
entirely proven, since we have Spirifers , Ac., similar to those in 
Russell’s shaft and the railway section at Maitland overlying the 
Coal-seams, Glossoptcris being the most abundant fossil fern.” 
“ Brisbane, April 11,1866. 
“I send you a copy of what Professor M‘Coy addressed to me 
after an examination of the fossils I took him, viz.,— 
4 Your brown beds No. 2 are identical with the Marine beds 
underlying the Coal of the Hunter ’ [i.e. overlying the Stony Creek 
Coal-seams.—AV.B.C.], 1 the Pro ductus brachytlnvrus , qc., §c. y 
fixing them. The Streptorhynchus is new, but of clearly carbon¬ 
iferous type. I have no doubt of their being Upper Palaeozoic. 
‘ The plants are Fhyllotheca Australis and Glossoptcris Broicn- 
iana, forms related to which in Europe are only found in Mesozoic 
rocks.’ ” 
As to Lepidodendron, I have no where asserted that the 
Lepidodcndron, Sigillaria and other plants of that class have been 
found in or over the beds of Newcastle or at A\ r ollongoug, though 
I have mentioned already the possible discovery hereafter ; but I 
have asserted many times that such plants occur in some parts 
of our Coal Measures, and that below the Marine fossils which 
underlie the Upper Measures Glossoptcris occurs, and others 
which have been by some considered solely of Mesozoic age ; and 
I have therefore argued that there is u a connection,” which has 
been denied, the denial in my opinion having arisen from want of 
personal experience on the part of my opponents, though I have 
given them the same credit I take to myself, viz., that we each 
and all come to conclusions to which we are led by our individual 
acquaintance with or ignorance of facts. That sumo of the 
doubters have contented themselves with passing sentence without 
sufficient inquiry is distinctly stated by one of them in a Parlia¬ 
mentary document, from which extracts will be found further on. 
I refer now to the “Progress Report from the Select Committee 
on Coal Fields Melbourne, ordered to be printed, 20th October, 
1857, and to the Evidence under questions Nos. 461, 471, 577, 
5S1, 582, 5S1, 586, 5S8 to 592. No one who peruses that 
evidence will deny that it was upon preconceived Palaeonto¬ 
logical determinations alone , ■without the condescension of a local 
research, that positive dogmatic dicta were declared as law with a 
wilful resolve to over-rule any opinion in opposition. Mr* 
