inetamorphosed more or less. He proposed to occupy a few moments in following the direction of the ancient currents, and to show their parallelism with the mountain chains in the Laurentian Mountains, north-east of them, which are nearly parallel to the Appalachian chain. The Geological Survey would show whether these sediments were thicker to the eastward than to the westward; but he thought the direction of the currents, which de posited the materials forming the Appalachian chain, was from the north-east. They had certainly good evidence from the fact that the strata are of the same age, and are much thicker from the north-easterly direction than from the south-west. They gradually thin in that direction, and, as he believed they were deposited by water, the further from the source they would be the thinner. They had reason to believe that in the south-west these strata were much thinner than in the north. Taking the Hudson River group which consists of sediments stretching to the south west, with a thickness of 1000 feet to the north east of us, it thins down to 600 feet in Pennsylvania, and finally in the Mississippi valley the thickness is not more than 100 feet. Passing from the Hudson river group and over a lapse of time, to the Oriskany Sandstone we find the deposits from the north east. At Gaspé the thickness is 7000 feet, in New York it is reduced to a few hundred feet and the stata thin out in a westerly direction. The conclusion he had arrived at was that along these lines of deposit where the greatest accumulation of sediment has been made, and where we have the greatest elevation of mountain chains, this merely coincides with the direction of the ancient currents, and that the Appalachian mountain range has not been more uplifted than the other portions of the country, or than the plain between these and the Atlantic. In New York and Pennsylvania they got to the Potsdam Sandstone, and, therefore, there was no uplifting of any previously existing rocks before the Appalachian chain. The folding and plication had commenced at an early period at a period before the upper Silurian Rocks were formed, and we find these strata plicated and uplifted and had metamorphosed in a considerable degree. We get no lower than the Potsdam Sandstone in any part of the Appalachian chain, and we can demonstrate that no lower mass has had anything to do in giving us the elevation of this mountain chain. The Prof. then referred to his examination into other formations in confirmation of his hypothesis that elevating forces had not

caused uplifting of these mountain chains. On the contrary, if there had been no folding and plication, this range of mountaius, he thought, would have been twice as high as they now are.

ORIGIN OF COAL.

Mr. Whittlesey who presented a paper on this subject, is in this matter a sort of geological heretic, who maintains a view long since exploded, and now not seriously entertained by any geologist familiar with the decided proofs of vegetable origin presented by all our beds of coal, even by those that have by metamorphic processes been converted into anthracite. Views of this character constantly make their appearance in Scientific Associations, and are usually listened to with patience, though regarded, in the words of one of the speakers on this paper, as "going backward in the progress of geological science."

GRAPTOPORA.

A new genus of polyzoa, allied to the curious silurian fossils known as graptolites, was characterised under this name by Mr. Salter. There appears some reason, however, to believe that this proposed new genus is identical with the Dictyonema of Prof. Hall.

We were so unfortunate as not to hear the papers of Prof. Emmons on the remarkable fossils recently found by him in North Carolina, and by Prof. Hitchcock on the much controverted question of the age of the Red Sandstone of Connecticut, nor have we obtained any detailed report of them.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF GREAT BRITAIN.

On the last day of the Session, Prof. Ramsay gave a verbal explanation of the mode of conducting this great survey. The American geologists present were very much interested in the subject; and spoke in terms of admiration of the thorough manner in which the work is carried on. Prof. Ramsay was requested to prepare his remarks for publication. In the mean time, therefore, we do not publish an abstract, hoping to have the paper in

extenso for our next number.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF MISSOURI.

Prof. Swallow followed Prof. Ramsay with an account of the survey of this and the neighboring States. The principal feature referred to was the enormous extent of the coal fields in the West, and the remarkable subdivision of parts of their margins into isolated patches or basins.

Several other important papers were on the list; but time failed to read them, and they will probably appear in the published proceedings of the Association.

SUBSECTION OF ETHNOLOGY AND STATISTICS, &c.

This was a vigorous off shoot from Section B; and under the able management of Prof. Wilson, Prof. Anderson, and other men of kindred spirit, entered actively into those great questions that affect the natural history of Man. The work of this section was of great popular interest, and of no little scientific importance, It will go far to rescue American ethnology from the opprobrium that has fallen upon it, in consequence of the crude and rash speculations that characterise some recent publications on this subject. We can give but a few fragments indicating the topics that were disscussed.

The first paper in this sub-section was that by Mr. Lesley on the word "Celt." It was full of ingenuity and erudition; but we confess that, after all, we prefer to follow the ingenious author as a guide in the complexities of the structure of coal fields rather than in philological niceties. The paper, besides, is one that

cannot be reduced to the form of an abstract.

THOUGHTS ON SPECIES.

No subject is of greater interest in Natural History than the investigation of the real nature and limits of species, and no American naturalist is better fitted to grapple with it than Prof. Dana. The following report does no justice to his argument.

According to Prof. Dana, and we think the view most philosophical, our idea of a species should consist of certain essential properties common to all the individuals, and in the organic world the power of invariable transmission of the properties; but, whether in the inorganic or organic world, we should regard variations within fixed limits as a law of every species under the influence of external agencies. This view of species, and we might indeed add any intelligible view of the subject, leads inevitably to the doctrine of the common origin of all the individuals of any species capable of continuous reproduction.

"Professor Dana said it might be well perhaps to examine the question of species synthetically, comparing the results of observations with the utterings of science, and he proposed the three

following questions:-1st. What is a species? 2nd. Are species permanent? 3rd. What is the basis of variations in species ? And first he said, that the idea of a group which is the common definition, was not essential, and indeed tended to confusion. Looking first at inorganic nature they learned that each element was represented by a specific amount or law of force. Thus taking the lightest element as a unit, oxygen would be found expressed by 8, and was of the same value in all its compounds. The resultant molecule was still equivalent to a fixed amount. Hence the essential idea of a species is that it corresponds to a specific amount or condition of centrated force defined in the act or law of creation. In the organic world the individual was involved in the germ, which possessed powers of developement to a completed result, and this also corresponded to a measured quota or specific law of force, though there was no unit by which to measure it, and though there might be different kinds of force. The same definition of a species would apply here, and thus species was in the potential value of the individual whether one or many existed, and the precise nature of the potentiality in each was expressed by its whole progress from the germ to its full expansion. 2nd. As to the permanence of species, it was found in the inorganic world that the element was always the same: oxygen was always 8, and all nature was characterised by fixed numbers. This being so for inorganic nature, must be so everywhere, for the principles which pervaded nature were not of contrariety; but of unity and universality. If the kingdoms of life were not made from the units which exhibited themselves in their simplest condition-if these units were capable of blending, they would not be units, and life would be but a system of perplexities. It might be seen, too, that the purity of species was guarded in nature. Both in the animal and vegetable kingdom, hybrids were her aversion as far as yet observed. Least of all was it to be expected that the law of permanence, so rigid among plants and the lower animals, should have its main exception in man. Yet if there were more than one species of man, the number of species must become indefinite by intermixture. It would have been a clumsy mode of giving man the control in all the zones of the earth, to have made him of many species capable of hybridization in opposition to the general law of nature. It would have been using for the propagation of the human race, a process which produces impotence among animals. It is true that different inor

ganic species continue to form new units; but it is not by indefinite blendings, but by a definite law; and if such a law existed in organic nature, it would also be in general an essential part of the system, easy of discovery. But there were variations in species, though they could never extend to the obliteration of the fundamental characteristics of the species. No substance could be independent of any other. The law of mutual sympathy was one of the most universal in nature. The planets where modified by each other, and one chemical substance by the other. Each body had its own fundamental force, and the relation of this to others was a part of the idea of the species; and this process of variation was a law of universal nature acting on the law of a special nature and compelling the latter to reveal its qualities. This was one of the richest sources of truth which was open to research, and hence we should not regard the individuals which were conspecific as constituting a species; but each one, as an expression of the species in its potentiality, and under some one phase of its variations. The system of nature must be conceived of as a system of units continually adding to the number of representative individuals by self reproduction; and all adding to their varieties by mutual sympathetic reaction."

CRANIAL TYPE OF THE AMERICAN RACE.

The clever though not over scrupulous writers of the so called "American School of Ethnology," have built largely on the researches of Dr. Morton, a man of great industry and ability, but not fully aware of the use which would be made of the materials he had collected. Professor Wilson has been going over some of Morton's ground, and is surprised to find his general statements not borne out by facts. The statements of this paper would seem to show that the whole subject of American crania requires reinvestigation.

"Prof. Wilson spoke on the supposed uniformity of Cranial Type throughout the American race, and recommended inquiry on this question so frequently forced on the attention of the Association, and in the meantime not to come into collision with theologians; There was a great variety in forms of the head, colour of the hair, and the osteological structure of the human frame. It was a question not only whether all human beings agreed in form, but whether they had always agreed; and in order to that discovery the search must be made in ancient tombs and tumuli. By ethnologists of the American school important results had been

G