a geologist, to whom I communicated the contents of the letter. In this letter Sir W. Logan says "after all it is not serpentine you have discovered. Dr. Hunt says it is agalmatolite or dysyntribite and it proves nothing; the rocks may be of Upper Silurian or Devonian age." I was not prepared to maintain that the ophite was not agalmatolite or dysyntribite; simple test proved that the ophiocalcite was undoubtedly a calcite. I could not for a moment admit that the strata in question were Upper Silurian or Devonian. Any one knowing the locality could not fail to be convinced that they were underlying the Upper and Middle Silurian of Arisaig, and therefore might be Lower Silurian, Huronian, or Laurentian, but certainly nothing more recent I had a specimen of the ophiocalcite-ophiocalcite it is now acknowledged to be-polished on two opposite sides by Mr. Wesley, marble worker. In returning it to me he said he had partly polished it by means of acid. It turned out to be a very beautiful and peculiar specimen. I examined its surface by a combination of lenses having a considerable magnifying power, and observed what appeared to me to be structure. I had often examined the magnificent specimens of Eozonal serpentine which were exhibited in the Canadian department of the Paris Exhibition of 1867, which were afterward deposited in the Ecole des Mines of Paris. I also had received from a Bohemian geologist in Paris a specimen of ophiocalcite with Eozoon Bohemicum. I compared this with the Nova Scotian specimen ; I became impressed with the conviction that if the Bohemian was Eozonal so was the Nova Scotian, and that this was another evidence of the Laurentian age of the Nova Scotian rocks. In my simplicity and ignorance of facts advanced in the Eozonal controversy, I did not know that serpentines of all ages might contain species of the genus Eozoon. I pointed out the peculiar structure of the Nova Scotian specimen and its resemblance to that of the Bohemian to Mr. Hendry, already referred to. He expressed doubts on the matter of structure in both, as an unbeliever in the Eozoon might do. About the same time Prof. Lawson of Dalhousie College and University, Halifax, came to the Museum and asked if I had a specimen of the Eozoon Canadense; I told him that I had not, but that I had a specimen of the Eozoon Bohemicum and what might be called the Eozoon Nova-Scoticum. He examined them, but replied that he wanted to see the real Eozoon Canadense. Mr. Hendry confirms the above statements as far as he is referred to, in the presence of Dr. How of Kings College and University, Windsor, to whose friendship and kindness I am indebted for the loan of a copy of the number of the American Journal of Science, containing Dr. Hunt's article already referred to.

In the spring of 1869, I visited Montreal and took with me the polished specimen of ophiocalcite. I gave it to Dr. Hunt in the lapidary's workshop in Gabriel street. A day or two after, when I was engaged in the same place talking with Sir W. Logan, Dr. Hunt entered with the specimen referred to in his article, and stated to Sir W. Logan in my presence to the effect that Dr. Honeyman had discovered a very interesting series of rocks; that

the specimens tempted him to go to see them, and that he believed them to be the Laurentian. Sir W. objected, saying that the specimen was not serpentine. Dr. Hunt assured him that it was ophiocalcite; that he had examined it; that the white effervesced with acid. He also named some of the constituents; I do not recollect what they were. Sir W. and Dr. Hunt left. I heard nothing more about the matter until my very kind host, Dr. Dawson, on returning from a visit to Gabriel street, told me, in his library, that Dr. Hunt had said to him that certain rocks that I had discovered were of Laurentian age; but that he had advised him to consider them first of all Devonian. All that I replied was, I heard him say so. For certain private reasons I expressed no opinion on the subject. When I returned to Halifax I arranged my representative collection of Nova Scotia rocks in the Provincial Museum under my charge, thus: Arisaig ophite, ophiocalcite and porphyritic diorite, at the bottom of the series; granites, new gneissoid rocks of Prof. Hind, next; andalusite rock and slates next; and thus they had remained until the present time. Many a time have I pointed out these rocks to visitors who take an interest in such matters, and told them the lowest ones were Laurentian. I have certainly not been silent, as Dr. Hunt informs the readers of the American Journal of Science, although the sound of my voice may not have reached Gabriel street, Montreal. I could name many witnesses to attest this.

I would now observe that, from one cause or other, I had never met with Prof. Hind since the time already referred to, until a day or two after he had read a paper on his discovery of the Laurentian rocks, before the Nova Scotia Institute of Natural Science. He came to meet Dr. Lawson in the Museum. He commenced discussing the subject of his discovery. I then turned his attention to my collection of rocks; showed him the Laurentian of Arisaig, and gave him a detailed account of the opinions expressed in regard to them. He informed me that he had announced his discovery of the Laurentian gneissoid in Sherbrooke and elsewhere, to Sir Roderick Murchison, Sir W. Logan, &c. Not long after a letter was inserted in the Halifax Morning Chronicle, addressed by Prof. Hind to the Hon. Robert Robertson, M.E.C., Commissioner of Mines and Public Works, dated Windsor, 10th Feb., 1870, from which I give the following extracts: "Under date Montreal, Feb. 3, 1870, Dr. Hunt informs me that recent microscopic examination of some of the specimens sent by Dr. Honeyman, has revealed well-defined Eozoon Canadense.'" "This," continued Dr. Hunt, must, I conceive, be conciusive evidence of their Laurentian age." "Dr. Dawson, in a separate communication, confirms the identification of the Eozoon."

66

I find, however, that in the discussion that followed the reading of the paper, "On the Laurentian rocks of Arisaig, N. S.," addressed to the Geological Society of London, Dr. Dawson remarked that the Arisaig Eozoon was different from that of Canada; that the Eozoon Bohemicum belonged to a formation more recent than the Laurentian, and that the Arisaig Eozoon did not prove the

rocks to be Laurentian. Vide printed abstract of the proceedings of the Geological Society of London.

I do not regard the discovery of Eozoon as the only evidence of the Laurentian age of the Arisaig rocks. I consider that relative position, in connection with lithological character, must have something to do with the determination of their age. Besides, is it not possible that, as there appear to be new different species of Eozoon belonging to different countries and different ages, that there may be different species in different countries, but still of the same age, and still that the Nova Scotian species is still Laurentian.

Another extract from Prof. Hind's letter: Dr. Hunt says, in his letter already referred to, "A line from the Laurentian of Malignant Cove (Arisaig) to that in Newfoundland, will pass through Cape Breton, and we can now look for limestone and Eozoon there." Is it not possible that the thought may have occurred to some one else besides Dr. Hunt? Perhaps Dr. Hunt has forgotten something that happened during the Exhibition in Paris of 1867. He came into the Nova Scotian Court, accompanied by Prof. Lesley of Philadelphia; he found among the polished specimens of marble a green one which arrested his attention; he asked where it came from, and was told that it came from Cape Breton, (having been furnished by Mr. Hendry already referred to.) This specimen also attracted the attention of Prof. Wyville Thompson, an Eozoonal unbeliever, who was a member of the International Jury; he said that it had Eozoonal structure; he wished to have it and got it; he took it to London where it made no small stir among the believers in the Eozoon, and gave occasion for a little ingenious explanation on the part of Dr. Hunt; so I was informed."

Another extract from Prof. Hind's letter: "It is thus, that Dr. Honeyman's opinions have been beautifully verified, but it would have greatly enhanced the gratification which Dr. Honeyman must feel if the announcement had been made a year and a half ago."

As might be expected this observation caused some excitement in Gabriel street. In order to rebut the above implied charge, doubtless, Dr. Hunt finds fault with me for not expressing my views, relative to the age of the rocks in question, in my official report. I answer, I studiously avoided expressing any opinion on controverted points in my report, and made it a simple record of facts. As far as I recollect, I mentioned the discovery of the rocks simpliciter. It appears that my alleged silence is considered by Dr. Hunt as "simply incomprehensible." I think I can bring the matter to the level of the comprehension of even a less acute person than Dr. Hunt. I have already shown that the term silence, if meant literally, is not a proper term to use in the case, as I have not been silent on the subject. If by silence he means that I had not addressed a communication on the subject to any scientific Society or Journal, until the publication of Prof. Hind's letter, Dr. Hunt has hit the mark. My defense is, I had not been able on account of the inclemency of the weather and lateness of the season, to examine the rocks in a manner so thorough and satisfactory as was desirable; I did not think there was any great hurry in the

matter, as I did anticipate the great discoveries of my excellent friend Prof. Hind. I have not yet had the desired opportunity, and yet I have had to write on the subject: first, to the Geological Society of London at the request of Prof. Hind; second, to the American Journal of Science, at the instigation of Dr. Hunt.

2. Descriptions of Fossils collected by the U. S. Geological Survey under the charge of Clarence King, Esq. (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philad., No. 1, 1870).-Mr. MEEK prefaces his numerous descriptions of new species by the following observations, addressed to Prof. Joseph Leidy.

I send herewith, to be presented for publication in the Proceedings of the Academy, descriptions of a few of the fossils brought in by the United States Geological Survey under the direction of Clarence King, Esq. You will please state, in presenting the paper, that the Trilobites described in it from Eastern Nevada, are decidedly Primordial types, and, so far as I know, the first fossils of that age yet brought in from any locality west of the Black Hills. Mr. King's collections also establish the fact that the rich silver mines of the White Pine district occur in Devonian rocks, though the Carboniferous is also well developed there. The Devonian beds of that district yet known by their fossils, seem mainly to belong to the upper part of the system. Mr. King, however, has a few fossils from Pinon Station, Central Nevada, that appear to belong to the horizon of the Upper Helderberg limestone of the New York series.

The Tertiary fossils described in this paper, from the region of Hot Spring Mountains, Idaho, came from an extensive and interesting fresh-water Lacustrine deposit, and are all distinct specifically, and some generically, from all the other Tertiary fossils yet brought from the far west. Two of the species belong to the existing California genus Carinifex, or some closely allied group, while another beautifully sculptured species was thought, by Mr. Tryon, to whom I sent a specimen of it, to be possibly a true Melania, and allied to existing Asiatic forms.

It is an interesting fact, that among all of our fresh-water Tertiary shells from this distant internal part of the Continent, neither the beaks of the bivalves, nor the apices of the spire in the univalves, is ever in the slightest degree eroded; even the most delicate markings on these parts being perfectly preserved, if not broken by some accident. From this fact it may be inferred that the waters of the lakes and streams of this region, during the Tertiary epoch, were more or less alkaline, as is the case with many of those there at the present day.

These descriptions, as well as others that I expect to send you soon, are merely preliminary and will be re-written, and presented with full illustrations, now in course of preparation, in Mr. King's report of his survey.

3. Discovery of a Mastodon.-On Friday last, Mr. Fletcher Correll, a farmer residing one and one-half miles southeast of Illiopolis, in this county, was digging a well upon his place, when, at the depth of about four feet from the surface, he struck a hard sub

stance, at first supposed to be a stone or piece of wood imbedded in the earth; but upon digging farther, it was discovered to be the remains of a mastodon.

The bones were in a fair state of preservation, and exhibited a dark, spongy, porous appearance. One of the tusks, which was broken in removing it from its long resting place, proved to be, when measured, nearly ten feet in length, and twenty nine inches in circumference three feet from the lower end. The other tusk, and the main portion of the skeleton, are now being lifted from the earth, and will probably be added to the collection of fossils now being made by our state Geologist, Professor Worthen.

The part of this huge creature which was exhibited in our office in the presence of Professor Worthen, was a piece of the lower left jaw, about two feet in length, and at least the same in circumference. It contained, in a fine state of preservation, one of the great jaw-teeth.-Daily State Journal, of Springfield, Illinois, Sept. 7. Received from C. L. Conkling.

4. Description of the Cavern of Bruniquel, and its organic Contents; by Professor OWEN. Part I, Human and Equine Remains. 55 pp. 4to, with six plates. (Phil. Trans., 1870; communicated to the Royal Soc., June, 1864).-Professor Owen, after describing the human remains, draws from them the following conclusions:

"They exemplify the distinctive characteristics of the human genus and species, as decidedly as do the corresponding parts of the present races; they show most affinity with the oldest Celtic types, the cranium being oval, and rather dolicho- than brachy-cephalic in its general proportions; the cranial capacity or brain corresponds with that of uneducated Europeans of Celtic origin, and exceeds that of the average Australian aboriginals."

Some of the bones accompanying the human remains-those of the deer especially-are covered with drawings, representing the heads of horses and showing much artistic skill; and from these draughtsmen of the cave-dwelling people, we thus learn that the horse of the era, Equus spelaus, had short pointed ears, and that the stallions had beard-like hairs; and from the antler of a reindeer, found in another cavern, that of La Madelaine, in Dordogne, we have the additional fact that the tails of these early horses were short and furnished with long hairs to their base, having "cauda undique setosa," instead of "cauda extremitate setosa, a fact repeated seven times on the antler. The horse is of the same species that occurs in certain quaternary beds in France, for example, those near the Tour de Juvillac, Püy-de-Dome, and belongs to the restricted genus Equus, and not to that including the zebra and ass (Asinus). Prof. Owen concludes with the following paragraph :

"No satisfactory evidence of an aboriginal feral Equus caballus has yet been obtained by the Naturalist. No specimen of such exists in any Museum. The doubts expressed by Forster and Pallas as to the alleged wild horses of the Ukraine, viz: that they might be descendants from strayed domestic horses, have not yet been cleared up. I believe the illustrations contained in the pres