164 Sedimentary Formations 
appear as a third repetition of that in Australia (taking tho Talchir group as 
representative of the Bacchus Marsh sandstones, I mean, it would bo bo) : 
Australia. 
Bacchus Marsh sandstones, with 
Gangamopteris. 
IT.—Newcastle beds, with Glossop- 
teris , Phyllotheca , Yertebraria , 
&c. 
Marine Carboniferous animals. 
I.— Glossopteris, Phyllotheca, Ac., 
with Marine animals, Ac., in 
New South Wales. 
India. 
III.—Damiida—Coal-bearing strata, 
with Glossopteris, Phyllotheca, 
Ac. 
Talchir group, with Gangamopteris. 
Dr. Feistmantel w r rites that he will compare always with the Indian 
formations his intended description of some of the Australian fossils ; and he 
says, “it will be seen that tho Australian Newcastle beds and the Indian 
Damudas are not to be confounded.” 
With reference to tho list now published, he says— “ I send you to-day again 
the lists of the plants, Ac., based on your first collection [forwarded to Cal¬ 
cutta], and on the quotations by other authors, as I have put it down in my 
manuscript (it may be, that in your collections, now expected, will be some 
other forms, which I shall communicate hereafter).” 
“ The * Systematic Table ’ includes those species only which I could 
determine from your first collection, and which were described before by others, 
but there is every probability that in your recent collections there will be 
some other forms/’ 
“ Of the two boxes you recently sent me, I received only that entrusted to 
Professor Liversidge. I found everything in order, and I am very much 
obliged to you for your great kindness. The specimens of Lcpidodendron which 
were in that box as the Ij, nothum as from Goonoo Goouoound from Queensland, 
and the two small specimens fromSmith’s Creek which you put in extra in an enve¬ 
lope are of great importance. Tho one (marked 151, Smith’s Creek, 1850) is again 
a Rhacopteris, and proves that my determination of the former specimens you 
sent from Smith’s Creek and Port Stephens were correct, when I put them 
down as Rhacopteris (comp.) inatquilatera , Gdpp; becauso this new’ specimen 
with more split leaves is to the former one (from the same localities) in the 
same relation as are certain forms in the Kohlenkalk and Culm of Silesia to 
the real Rhacopteris huvqtiilatera, Gdpp. I have described these forms from 
tho Silesian Kohlenkalk with more split leaves as Sphenopteris ( Rhacopteris) 
Rtimeri, Fstm. (1873, ‘ Ltschr, d. I), geol. Gesellsh.') but more material proved 
hereafter that these very possibly belong as certain developmental states to 
Rhacopteris inccquilatera, being connected with this later species by forms 
which were described as Rhac. Jlabellifera , Stur. (from the Culm flora). 
