( 111 ) 
Museum, Calcutta, which I brought to London during a hasty 
visit in 1862, for comparison with Colonel Strachey's and 
other specimens. This collection had been made in 1861 by 
Messrs. Theobald and Mallet. In going over these with my 
friend Mr. Salter, I stated to him that, so far as represented by 
Mr. Theobald, there were only two recognizable groups 
among these fossiliferous rocks, one lower, one upper, (exclud¬ 
ing’ the silurian), and that the lower, according to him, held the 
Spirifer described above as Spirifer Rajah (which we had 
referred to S. Keilhavii, and which further comparison of other 
specimens has not enabled us to separate from VonBuch's 
species), and the ammonites which we had recognized as 
Triassic. As I had never been able to visit the locality, I 
could only give the information collected by others. Mr. 
Theobald's statements were very distinct on this point, 
though not supported by Mr. Mallet. The country is, 
however, difficult, and I felt convinced that some error had 
crept in. Under this conviction, I did not publish the results 
obtained in 1861, and in consecpience, I despatched again to 
the same localities, in the present year, Dr. F. Stoliczka and 
Mr. Mallet, and with the most satisfactory results. These 
will be published in more detail hereafter, but in connection 
with the preceding pages, I may state that the Spirifer Rajah 
(of Salter) does not occur (see ante , page 54) in the same 
beds with Triassic ammonites, but in beds decidedly below 
them,—beds which other evidence combines to show must be 
referred to the same general relative age (in the sense of 
homotaxis ) as the ‘ Carboniferous' of Europe." 
