58 Sedimentary Formations 
In the above remarks of my distinguished friend are some 
hints that will not fail to be of use in relation to New South 
Wales, as well as to other parts of Australia, and it is satis¬ 
factory 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 our Lower Carboniferous 
beds as well as in the Tipper 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 X)r. Oldham, and as I have all along stated, must be 
Palaeozoic, cither on a parallel with some part of the Upper 
Palaeozoics of Europe or occupying a series of beds not repre¬ 
sented there. 
For the present I content myself with observing that Dr. 
Ottokar Feistmantel, Palaeontologist to the Geological Survey of 
India, reports the finding of Glossopteris since 1876 in the 
Kajmahal beds, and that instead of the same species of Glossop¬ 
teris occurring generally in New South Wales and India, in the 
Dainuda beds which are held to be conformable with those of 
this Colony, lie thinks u with great difficulty we may be able to 
get only one common species” (“ Records, GeoL Sur. Mo. 4,” 
1876, p. 122.) “It seems,” be adds, “that the existence of a 
connection with the Australian is very weak.” * 
Dr. Feistmantel (4th Nov., 1877) tolls me that Glossopteris 
occurs both in the Panchet and Talchir systems, so that its 
species must have “a very wide range,” going up from the 
Australian Palaeozoic to the Cutcli Middle Jurassic. Dr. Oldham 
had before in I860 stated as much. (See p. 210 of “ Trans 
Boy. Soc. Viet . ” 1860.) 
As to the Coal-beds with no Glossopteris, they will go with 
rocks of a more recent date, and there can he no objection to 
class them in the age of the Secondary fossils with which they 
are associated. Professor M‘Coy himself admits—“That on 
mere fragments of leaves or other most imperfect or ambiguous 
material no generic nor even ordinal characteristics should bo 
founded.” (“ Observations oji Vegetable Fossils of Auriferous 
Drifts , by Baron von Mueller 1874, p. 14.) But this argument 
does not apply where fragments even of the same plant occur in 
# I cannot help alluding in t his place to si passage in my let ter to Sir H. 
Barkly, K.C.B. (“ Trans. Hoy. Soc. Victf 1860), the publication of which led 
to a criticism on the part of my opponent, which was not tempered by the 
“ suaviter in modo ” though in contradiction; “for liter ” was conspicuous ; and 
which is recalled to my recollection by Dr. Feist mantel’s words above , — “I 
would not be surprised when the whole deposit of our Carboniferous series 
shall be made known , if doubts should arise as lo the confidence with which 
some persons speak as to the correlation of the Australian and Indian Coal¬ 
beds.” 
