42 
Sedimentary Formations 
though in some instances the caudal fin is not so distinctly 
pronounced as in others, which may therefore be classed as 
“ semi-heteroeerque.” But Palfeoniscus well developed as to 
the tail was found in shales and sandstone 1,000 feet geologi¬ 
cally above the worked Coal-seams. 
The existence of Pa lie o zoic strata of Carboniferous age in 
some parts of Victoria is, as I believe, a fair assumption of the 
Cape Paterson Reporters, though at present they cannot prove 
their position by fossiliferous evidence ; but the denial of that 
existence wonld hand over their whole Coal-territory to a forma¬ 
tion or formations to prove the age of which they have no more 
marine evidence than they have respecting a Carboniferous era. 
They have never yet seen a single Marine fossil bed in all Victoria 
to justify even their adopted view of their Coal belonging to the 
Oolitic age, which is elsewhere multitiulinously fertile in Marine 
fossils, and this, no doubt, is “ peculiar.” The Reporters on the 
'Western Port Coal-fields notify carefully, that “ it should he 
distinctly understood that our opinion respecting the age of the 
New South Wales Coal Measures is based entirely on the collection 
of rocks, fossils, and Coals forwarded to us by the late Mr. Keene, 
and on the published reports on these Coal-fields.” But even this 
is accompanied by a sneer at Mr. Keene’s alleged blunders in 
Palaeontology. 
On the above I would observe that, as I had seen the collec¬ 
tion referred to before it was despatched, I am prepared to say it 
did not completely represent the beds in flic local district from 
which it came, and was only a partial display of the series of 
the strata in association with Coal throughout the Colony; and 
that in the arrangement adopted by Professor MToy, as quoted 
in the Report, most important portions of the beds are omitted. 
I would, therefore, attribute the “ opinion of the Board res¬ 
pecting the age of the New South Wales Coal,” so authoritatively 
pronounced, to be based on imperfect data, showing that the 
gentlemen who then decided the question arc practically ignorant 
of the true grounds of decision, clearly not having made any in¬ 
spection for themselves, and totally ignoring the opinions of the 
host of observers who have ecrimed to the contrary; amongst 
whom is Mr. Daiutrec, a member of the Victorian Geological 
Survey, the late Mr. Stutchbury, who reported thereon, as well as 
many others who have studied the strata in situ, and are true 
witnesses against the side of the Ooliticalparty. In the pleadings 
on that side, the reliable evidence that makes against them is 
“burked,” and a foregone conclusion is offered as if it were final 
—and the judgment is delivered ex cathedrd , whilst numerous 
witnesses of the first credibility are altogether ignored. This 
may be prudent and ingenious, hut it is not “ scientific ,” nor is it 
honest, yet it helps to bring out the magnificent declaration: 
