IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) fe 'o <- ly to the accusation was tacitly declined publication by the Editor who published the accusation. If I am j-ight in thiw sujjijosition, then I can otdy say that the present authoi', like my accuser in the journal referred to, seems to conlbund siippletiientiny and diffei 'uy in opinion with dctractiny. On the same page, 404, we tind the following setitcnce : " And much examination of the ground which he explored, enables me to atttrm that no one will ever be able permanently to over set the general leading sulxlivisions of the Jiaurontian and Jluronian which ho established." And in tiie same connection, on page 415, wo road : " In the typical lluronian area of Lake Huron it unquestionably rests i^ A unconformaMy on the Lativontiun." Tlio nieiinirii,' of the tirst ot the ahovo ((iiotatioiiH is i-iitlier va<;iK', and it is certainly not apparent how the author, never havinliy (»f these ancient Ibrniations, is in u p(;sition to nialie any attii'uiation on the subject. 1 hesitate to do so niyselt', notwithstjjuding that f have examined much moi-e of the ground than the author has. Examina- tion such as that referred to l\y tiie author, is wholly insufficient to warrant such a decided expi'ession of ()]>inion on his part, though it may enable lum to understand and adopt or reject the conclusions of others. Even 8irW. Logan navor attirnied the unconformity mentioned in the second quotation ; and while he designateil the Laurentian a S^'stem, he called the Huronian a ,s*7/<>, and he says the Laurentian _t!;neiss is followed by a slate conglomerate and nowhere does he say the Huronian series /riS, that Sir William knew that, iwks even u]) to the Carl)onit'ero\iH had heeii " i)i'ofoiiii(lly altered." may perhaps bo questioned. In any case 1 have never seen even Devonian strata in eastern Canada, to wiiieh such a term could he correctly applied — and tlie succeeding sentences respectin*;" the pi-oi^iessive alteration of the Quebec rocks to the south and southeast, are also wholly incorrect. The rocks are, as a fact, neither moi'c nor less altered at Cape Rosier in (iasp^ than they ai-e at Philipsburff on the N'ermont boundary, nor on the shores of the St. Lawrence, than they are on the Atlantic coast. Throne-bout, tluMC are cases of local alteration, but these are clearly due to local causes, whi(di can be pointed out; then again that the fo/;siliferous slates in th(> Kastern Townshi|)S(f//fi/7(rt.V with the crystalline rocks named is absolutely incorrect, as it is also that any such crystalline rocks " seemingly represent the shales of Point Levis, if not still newer members of the series." The fossils alluded to occur not in nacreous slates, but in plumbaginous limestones, clearly of Trenton age, and these have no connection with the chloritic and otherciystaliine schists named, excei»t as unconformably ovci'l3'ing and foMed in out- liers. Here again the autlior has '>ever worked out the stratigraphy and is therefore not i?> a position to express an opinion. I have worked it out personally, and more or less examined the facts on the ground, from the Vermont boundary to the Gaspt? peninsula, and from Maine, IS'evv Hampshire, and the Maritime Provinces, to the shores of the St. Lavvrence. 1 am further prepared to demonstrate my conclusions either in the tield or in the museum, where the whole series of specimens, carefully collected and labelled, is available for examination. These tacts are well known to the author, and it is cei'tainly remai-kable under such circumstances to tiiid a note by Sir William appended to Mr. Afuri-ay's report on Newfoundland of 1865, quoted (page 40") as " presenting as cleai- a view of the whole matter as we can give up to the present time," and one's astonishment is oul}'^ increased after perusal of the note quoted as doing this. On page (409) we find a repetition of the statement already alluded to, " that the Quebec group rocks become altered to the south," and another tacit admission of the contemj)oraneous volcanic action. The older metamorj)hic gi'oup, like the parallel ranging fossiliferous group, is no more altered in the township of Potton on the Vermont boundarj', than it is in the Shickshock Mountains in Gaspe, and the " wieqw'vical superposition " in Newfoundland, mentioned, same page, will, I venture to say, be found to be as equi ^ocal as is that of the Utica slates under- ',1: P -r \ \ ft lyin«; tlio Levis at (^iiclicc ; ainl as we ii(>\v know. a( many otlnT ]»la('('M on Uie south shoiv oI'iIh' Si. Lawivnc*-. On tlio sanu! patjo (400) my nanu' lirsl appears, and I am rcjM'esonlod aH boin;i^ tUxpoxfjl to rc';j;ard the altoriMl rocUs lyint,' to llu' soiilh-eiiHt of the ti/pical (/iieliec sorios as heUnitjiML;- to two oMi'i- i^ronps. I wus not disposed to i'e^ai'ar«'iM.ly (lip[)iiii;' iindor the Levis rod s, are others holding a dislini-t, I'tica fauna, the relations bein;^ i-xaetly like those which oritjinally misled Sir W. Lo^an at (iiiohec and on the Island of Orleans. All these facts were distinctly pointed out to ihe author l»y inj'self after my examinations of the retjion in 1876, 1877, and IHTH. Of evidence from Newfoundland (pjiges 401> and 411) I Hhall say nothing. I have never heen there, and am therefore in no position to express any opinion or make any affirmations of helief respecting it; but Mr. Blllin«>s' i-en'.arks (pa<>;es (»4-G7 ; Paheo/oio KossiIh, Vol. 1.) indicate j)lainly to me that the strati/^raphy on which Ids paheonto- loi^ical conclusions were based was wron;^', and we need not therefore be surprised at his concliidinj;; sentence us follows: "Judging from tht lossils alone I should say that tht; Levis immediately succeeds the Calcifei'ous, but the ph^'sical evidence seems to show that this is not the case." On page 412 we tind a repetition of the statement of my views made on i)age 200 which, excei)t as regards the use of the wholly inapi)licable term ttif^ixised to, is ct»rre«;t. I iiave distinctly demonstrated and affirmed the fact, both from m3'own independent observation and from a careful study of Sir William's descriptions of hia observations in 1842, 1844, 1848. On the same pages microscopic fossils are mentioned in connection with the oldei- series. This error I have explained ante in remarks on page 408, Also a supposition is advanced that there " may be two crystalline series, one below and one above the Levis." Well, we may suppose anything however uidikely and improl)able, and this sup- position, for which there is not one particle of *'viuence, can only be placed in that class. To suggest it seems to iniply an entire want of practical knowledge or appreciation of the structural geology of the region. To the summing up, on page 414, 1 must necessarily assent, as, though it contains a repetition of certain errors already pointed out, it is in the main a correct statement, and a tacit acceptance of my own conclu- sions respecting the Quebec trroup ; but it can scarcely' be naid to embody the views of my predecessor, which were, i believe, till quite recently, likewise those of tno author. As regards the use of tb«i name Levis leading to misconception, while admitting this to some 3xtent, I can only say that having shown the iiuii-t'xistonco o|' nilU'iy ami Iaihadu npari from Leviw, nnd huvinj; oliniinati'd iVorn tlic i^ufhcc (ii-mip tin* nu'lariii»i|iliu olilor sorieH. and also considt'i-aldo areas of Tifiilon, Tlica and lliiiI>oii K'ivi-i-s hitherto ineliidecl in it, the eomse dc|»reeate(l sreius less o|ien to ohjcc- tion than to iviaiii the name (^ueltee L!roii|>. Howevei'. names are, as is justly i-emarked, ol very little imjiortamr in tliem>ejves, and I cordially aj^ree in the neeessity of nut ' mi>a|)|ilyin:^- them or need- lessly ehan;;in;^ them," espeeially in the dirt'ctiun of iuventin:', new- ones. I can not agree in the statement (puiro -I^^) of the •• main jioint in dispute between Sir VV. Lo^an and his latei- erities," indeed not oidy is it not the main point in ilispiile, hut il has ahsoliitely nothing whatever to do with it. The main points — there ai'e nutrv than one— at is^ue iu'tween my predeeeasor and myself sim|tly un, large ureas of pre-Camhrian ro( lnflusiuns coverlly allatked in vindicatini; those of my pro- deoessor. and at the same time ul'leii tacitly adopted, in somo chsoh with no acknt»wiod,i,'niont and in others with the barest possible albision to their aiitiior, while tiie w\u}\e subject is entirely misstated, as I have shown it to have been, it will 1 think bo admitted by all unprejutliced persotiH tliat the foregoing remarks are not under the circumstances uncalled lor or out of place. Ottawa, April, 1883. 644)(14 7U0 c_ I'J I