5 6 Sedimentary Forma tions 
Virginia * — “The Coal Measures of Bi cl imond,” says the Western 
Port Coal Board, u are stated, by Sir C. Lycdl to belong to the lower 
part of the Jurassic Group.” Well! lie did once sav so, but lie 
found that ho was wrong, and so lie placed them finally in the 
Trias ; Professor lleer considering that the plants have “ the 
nearest affinity to the European Keuper.” (“Student's Elements 
of Gcolf 1871, p. 382.) 
Why cannot the Board follow a good example and condescend 
to look down the line a little? They flirt with the word 
“ Mesozoic” out of compassion for their “first love” among the 
Oolites, and are afraid to acknowledge they have a hankering 
after a second idea, and so are unjust to it by their indecision. 
Africa . — In Africa, the association of the genera GlossdptOris, 
Phyllothcca, and Dietyopteris, “ affords some evidence of Mesozoic 
affinities” says Mr. Tate, who, nevertheless, shows that the shales 
in which they occur are not Jurassic but Triassic (Q.J.G.S. 
xxxiii. p. 142.) Palieoniscus and some of the reptiles and an 
encrinital stem might refer these Karoo beds to a lower position 
still. Mr. Tate admits the analogy is with the Iveuper (p. 109). 
The late W. S. Macleay, Esq., E.B.S., always expressed his belief 
that certain beds near Sydney belonged to some part of the 
“ Xew Bed.” And it is curious to observe, bow many persons 
who “ know what they arc talking about,” some from above as 
the Ooliticals, and some from below as the Permianitcs and 
Tipper Carboniferites, have found their battle-field on the ter¬ 
ritory that was once intact as the “ Kew Bed,” but which 
has been cut up and re-distributed since the early days of 
our geological recruiting, after the fashion in political con¬ 
tests. The defenders of the Pahcontological territory will 
not, however, surrender at discretion, hut will go in for a 
final struggle, in the hope and intention of making their 
case good until they have been -proved mistaken. It is "not so 
much, however, for the love of t he past discussion, as to contri¬ 
bute to the history of it, that iu this place, notwithstanding some 
recent light has been thrown on the raiseo-botany of India by one 
whose ability and knowledge are deserving of universal respect, 
that the letter of my friend, Dr. Oldham (published in the last 
Edition) will find a place in this, for it contains a concise view of 
what was believed in India by those who used well all their 
opportunities up to 2nd April, 1874 ; and if there is error in any 
of its conclusions we shall have an opportunity further on of 
comparing the antidote with the bane, and I would hesitate to 
strike out unceremoniously from these pages the results of years 
of patient and conscientious labour of one who has “ left his 
mark” upon Indian geology, which cannot be erased without deep 
ingratitude and deliberate injustice. By comparison of this docu¬ 
ment with certain revelations to be mentioned in the next section 
